USPSA multi-gun stage scoring?

[GENE S]

Are we there for the prize table, or for the fun of shooting ???

Gene S

[uscbigdawg]

I've read through a lot of the statements and it seems that those that shoot 3-gun, have it pretty clear. Open, Limited, Tactical. If you want to add Heavy Metal/He-man, so be it.

Quit trying to complicate things by complaining about multi-gun stages and pistol/shotgun/rifle matches. It is not a series of matches it is A 3-GUN MATCH! If we wanted to shoot individual guns we would be shooting a shotgun match, a rifle match and what we already do, a pistol match (which is what the individual matches really are). The easy route is to conform to the rules. The CORRECT way is to re-write the rules or have a seperate set of rules for 3-gun. No wonder why SMM3G and RM3G (and other non-USPSA 3-gun matches) do better than our own Nationals! How much more complicated can we make this? The rules for IMGA matches are like 2-3 pages long (i.e. VERY SIMPLE)!

Open: You bring one gun that's Open = Open

Limited: Standard Pistol/Standard Shotgun/Standard Rifle

Tactical: Same as Limited, but one piece of glass on your rifle

Heavy Metal/He-Man: .45 caliber pistol/12 gauge PUMP shotgun/.308 rifle (no optics, etc.)

Have a power factor if you want it, but for most of the shooters (by a huge margin), it'll be major pistol and shotgun, and minor rifle. There's no Revolver, L-10 or Production in 3-Gun. So don't complicate matters with this. Otherwise, what's the next series of questions:

- If your rifle holds more than 10 are you now Limited/Tactical/Open?

- If your Remington 1100/1187 (non-CM) holds more than 5 are you out of Production?

Multi-gun stages are why we shoot 3-gun. Having your guns more than an arms reach in front of you are a part of that (another topic that apparently is causing some strife). The scoring system and rulebook are not gospel. The leadership needs to understand that, or continue to not have the number of shooters that non-USPSA 3-Gun matches draw. If you keep over complicating matters, you will lose what the addition of Tactical has given USPSA...a bridge between IMGA and USPSA.

Rich

[rhino]

I was reminded on Sunday how we handled the pistol v. rifle PF issues on a pistol-rifle combined stage. I had forgotten about it, but what we did was make all of the pistol targets Pepper Poppers and US Poppers. Then, I scored the stage as if it were a rifle only stage since the PF of the handgun didn't matter ... either the steel was down or it was a miss.

[Jim Norman]

There are several ways to handle this.

Major Minor is a pain if you allow weapon choice on targets. If you have rifle targets and pistol targets, it is simply a matter of scoreing PT-1 and RT-1 correctly. Now, some matches do the following, If you shoot a .308 AKA Battle Rifle vs a carbine, you only need one hit to neutralize, vs two for a .223 or other.

Ironman is probably not a USPSA/IPSC catagory or Division. USPSA/IPSC 3-gun is generally a bit more genteel than a "tactical" match. Generally it will have less mud, and less physical challenge. The USPSA "Tactical" class or Division which allows a single optic on the rifle only is a good thing. There are a lot of Limited shooters that are fine with pistol and SG, but at rifle distances they need the optic. This allows them a place without haveing to go to the great expense of Open.

Now as to "Hard Steel to seperate the manly calibers from the foo-foo stuff. It can work, but remember, you then have to think about calibrating steel rifle targets at 350 meters or more with a .308 and only in the sweet spot, but still have a high hit be able to take them with a .223 It does get complicated fast! I'd ratehr chrono the pistol and Rifle and assume that a 12 is major and a 20 is minor.

Score them by pioints the same as is currently done with pistol. As tothe difference between Major Rifle and Mior Rifle, that is a bit problematic. The shot to tshot times with an AR-10 or an M1A vs an AR-15 are horrendous. If you expect people to shoot Major Rifle at all, you need to consider perhaps a wider point spread, such as all A, B, & C are 5 points and only a D is 3 points and only for the rifle portion. That will take a bit of math and some emperical evidence. Maybe have someone like Benny, Todd, Mike or Bruce run a few stages with both systems and compare the times and hits to see where they fall.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

Rich,

Good break-down.

It's been seven pages and a bit of time (and I don't want to go re-read)...

On the Major vs. Minor thing...have we considered if any and all ammo must make power factor? Every round for the the match (pistol, rifle, SG) need to be Major to make Major? Or, needs to make Minor to shoot for score?

I know we all have Major pistols. But, many shooters that have the means to shoot 3-gun likely reload already...or would just as soon buy 9mm.

?

[mactiger]

Ok, guys--good points all around, but consider the facts of the sport (USPSA 3 Gun) as they are right now:

1) 3 Gun Tournaments consist of 3 separate matches. That's the way the rules have been for a while, and how they are now, at least in the USPSA/IPSC world. I can't tell what the BOD may end up with.

2) There is currently no provision in the rules for multi-gun stages. I'm not saying they aren't possible--you just have to work within the rules. I'm also not saying they are bad--multigun stages are fun. But, that's why there are issues with major/minor, and keeping the gun within arms reach. The rules are what govern the sport; without them you have no organized competition, just anarchy, and a different game each time you go play.

3) The scoring program won't handle a multi gun stage, unless you do the "work arounds" that I mentioned above.

4) USPSA has many rules that have evolved over time. Some are good, some are not so good. The original IPSC rules covered one sheet of paper, too, IIRC. But, as the sport grows and evolves, so do the rules. Other sports short rule sheets notwithstanding, we are where we are with the rules right now. I'd be willing to guess that the rules for the other long gun sports will grow longer and more complex with time.

Now as for the current state of affairs for 3 Gun matches--you probably won't change anything by arguing it in this forum. You have all raised some good, valid points, and I've seen some suggestions for improving the way we do things--score matches, run multi-gun stages, etc. I strongly urge you to do a couple of things:

1) Consolidate your ideas, and present them to your Area Director, or any board member. I'll take a copy too, if you wish, although the IPSC rifle rules committee is not active at this time. All input is welcome, though. One of the biggest problems of being an Area Director is that you really never hear from the majority of the members you represent. Not all of them read these forums, but they do read their mail and email.

2) Volunteer to write or fix the scoring system/program so that it will handle multi-gun stages. There is nothing like showing someone a working example to change that person's mind about it's validity.

I'm not trying to stop the open exchange of ideas here. But I am saying that until someone communicates a good, working example of a better way to do it, to the USPSA BOD, you are only going to be convincing one another.

If you feel strongly about keeping 3 Gun alive within USPSA, then take the time to talk with the people in charge, present your ideas, and keep at them until you get some results. If that doesn't work, well, there are always other places to play with your long guns. It may work out that USPSA really isn't the place for 3 Gun competition, although I'd hate to see that day come.

Troy

[bgary]

It may work out that USPSA really isn't the place for 3 Gun competition, although I'd hate to see that day come.

Thanks, Troy.

USPSA *is* the place for 3-gun competition, and there are lots of people working to try to figure out how to get the obstacles out of the way. Our rules have "worked" for years, and changing them to reflect new or changed interests is not a trivial task, but... we're working hard to make sure it happens.

Bruce

[George]

You can simplify it if you want to, and it would be fine for the folks in the US. But a compliance with World IPSC means PF and attempting to give the individual match thing an equal footing with a multi-gun match. A lot of work has already gone into USPSA and IPSC being in accordance for P-Shooter matches (Pistola that is). To arbitrarily toss this just to keep the stats work simple is a decision that needs to be made at the top level. The stats and division details would be easier with a well designed scoring application, but in the meantime we are holding matches every week somewhere and everyone is using a slightly different set of workarounds, or a radically different system altogether.

Yes, the mudhens will still need different frameworks because their match formats are just a little too far out of the gun-racing camp to be reconciled without having it diluted too much. The "full-on" Tac-Match scene is another ballgame from US3G, SMM3G, JP3G, etc. No matter what most IMG matches think, they really aren't that different from USPSA, especially now that USPSA is going away from a single gun only format at the US3G (about time). Once a good scoring application is created and some decisions made, I believe there will be a complete convergence of 3-gun (except in the case of some specific venues of course).

I am happy shooting IMG rules, but if USPSA does that, it means that 3-gun here is totally incompatible with world IPSC rules that already govern all three guns. I believe that a properly setup scenario should give the Tac Match afficionado's the ability to come to USPSA Multi-Gun matches and have the same gear they use at IMG matches be perfectly competitive and get to shoot lot's of mondo combo stages too.

The onus of scoring and administering this should not fall on the shooters. No matter which scenario governs the shooting, the scoring and divisions should not run the match. The stage design and competitive challenge should drive the match with everything else supporting the stage designers and the shooters in enjoying the challenge. No matter how hard the scoring details, or complicated behind the scenes manipulations get, the shooting should be kept straight forward. IMHO, USPSA should still correlate with existing IPSC structures, no matter what it takes to bring that about in the administration shack. Properly done, the choice of what type of event to run should be up to the MD and design team.

I've been shooting 3Gun for over 15 years now and I have seen it go from pretty low key, to pretty big time. I have seen all of the scoring permutations that can be imagined. I have personally scored 3Gun in MSS (remember that), Excel, EZ(Not!)Winscore, pocket calculator and by hand. It all works, it's just more, or less work. Less work is fine. More work is fine. Whatever it takes, just do it is what I say. IMHO, IPSC compliance and real 3Gun should not be incompatible. We owe it to World IPSC to show them how cool "real" 3Gun is! And how to do it properly without tearing down the whole darned shack!!

--

Regards,

Geoffrey Linder

TY-11141

+++++++++++++++++++

(Added after reading Bruce & Troy's posts)

Yes, & Yes!

--

George,

Edited April 22, 2004 by George

[uscbigdawg]

Hi Troy,

If there is anything that I can do to help, please do not hesitate to contact me. I enjoy 3-Gun and want to see the Nationals flurish into what it can be. The frustrating part is seeing the restrictions put on stage designers because of the degree to which the pistol rules developed in USPSA do not apply to 3-Gun. Especially for those who shoot IMGA 3-Gun matches. While I'm all for complying with rules, those rules should be made to limit divisions/equipment, establish safety and scoring. They should not restrict stage designers from "creative" stage design.

Oh well. I'm sure that there is a middle ground that can be reached. I'd really like to see more of the IMGA (non-USPSA) shooters come over to our Nationals. Creating Tactical is a great first step. After that, simplifying the rules and maybe a scoring overhaul would probably do the trick. The nice thing about IMGA scoring is that you can immediately tell who is ahead of whom, as it's time plus penalties. However, I don't like it as there is a lesser emphasis on accuracy. Again, if there could be some middle ground to where the scoring system could be more spectator friendly and frankly competitor friendly, that would be HUGE.

Well, like I said I know the BOD is working hard on this. Please help the 3GN staff in reaching conclusions to outstanding issues so that stage designs, scoring, etc. can be worked out. After all, something new can be attempted if only for one year. If doesn't work, then don't do it again. The staff knows a lot about shooting 3-Gun matches and might be a little better wired into what the membership is looking for. That's not a shot, just a theory. But, you do have to give people willing to step up and manage a project the chance to lead and make unpopular (to the rulebook, the BOD or the membership) decisions.

Rich

[JFD]

I held my first 3-gun match last Sunday, and as this is a one man show(me), I decided to simply set all stages up as handgun stages in EZWinScore.

Knowing my shooters and guessing about new shooters, I figured nobody would bring a Major rifle. Nobody did, so I used the handgun PF for all guns. I only used steel and clay pigeons for shotgun targets, so there was no worry there.

For this match I didn't need to recognized Tactical division since everyone with a red dot or scope also had a comp, me included. Even though I shot a standard shotgun and L-10 handgun, I fell into Open division due to the rifle comp. For the classifier stage, the shooter's actual division (before considering the shotgun and rifle) was used.

For the overall results and multigun stages, I just changed the shooter's division until I had the results for all multigun stages and the overall results printed.

Probably not the best way to do it, but so far I've had no complaints.

[George]

For this match I didn't need to recognized Tactical division since everyone with a red dot or scope also had a comp, me included. Even though I shot a standard shotgun and L-10 handgun, I fell into Open division due to the rifle comp.

Hi JFD,

Tactical & Limited rifle may have a comp, it just has to be no larger then 1" diameter and 3" length.

--

Regards,

[JFD]

Thanks for the clarification on the comp issue. I could have sworn I saw comps weren't allowed, but I've screwed up before...

Lucky for me that I made it clear this match was "experimental", and 95% of them were just out to have a good time.

[Sterling White]

Bruce and others...one thing that I would like to see the organization do would be to create a planning process that works and is not reactionary. For example, Mig addressed changes in his thread "Creation Of New Tactical Rifle Division (Pages 1 2 3 ), Drive-by Policy Making" and made some pretty clear predictions what would happen.

The governing body could put into place a time driven process that would test changes prior to implementation meaning that in year 1 - a proposed rule change would run thru a scoping and review process yielding solutions before full implementation in year 2.

Just some thoughts....otherwise Eric W hit the key points earlier in this thread.

[wgnoyes]

Trying to award High L-10, Production, etc., in pistol, and then recombining scores by hand for aggregate is a huge pain in the butt, and Bruce you know exactly what I mean. 

Troy, I realize this is an old post, so forgive me if someone already answered this, but ezwinscore quite adequately handles all five pistol divisions in a 3-gun tournament. The simple programmatic rule in the system is that anything Open makes you Open aggregate. However, Limited, L10, Production, and Revolver in pistol all qualify for Limited Aggregate (and Tactical now, as well) with no need for manual recalcuation. We do this now every quarter at South River, and have 2 Area 6 3-Gun tournaments successfully scored this way.

Bn

[mactiger]

Hi, Bill. No problem.

I was actually referring to a match that was 3 or 4 years ago, when all the divisions were first being recognized, and EZWinScore didn't do well with that. Now, I realize that there have been some program changes and as you say, it seems to work fine.

Thanks for reminding me, and if you had anything to do with that, thanks for your work, as well.

Troy

[wgnoyes]

Hi, Bill. No problem.

I was actually referring to a match that was 3 or 4 years ago, when all the divisions were first being recognized, and EZWinScore didn't do well with that. Now, I realize that there have been some program changes and as you say, it seems to work fine.

Thanks for reminding me, and if you had anything to do with that, thanks for your work, as well.

Troy

Oh, I remember that! That was 2000 when we started L10/Prod/Rev, and there wasn't any ezwinscore yet (we didn't get 1.0 gold until December); we were still using DOS ezscore, which supported open and limited only. I actually used a direct disk editor (superzap in the mainframe world) to rename fields in ezscore that I knew I wasn't going to use in the 2000 GA State Ch to support the new divisions as categories. It worked, but it was a pain in the ass.

[bgary]

Heh-heh-heh...

I scored the 2000 Nationals (East Huntingdon, PA), using EZScore (*not* EZWS)and some "custom" dbase routines and DOS batch files that, when I pressed a button would make five separate copies of the EZScore database (one for each division), go into each copy and "delete" all the shooters who were not in the appropriate division for that file. I could then print out "truly separate" results for each division, by opening up each separate file in turn.

We've come a long way, baby.

Bruce