New 3 gun scoring

[George]

I have to agree with Bill Sahlberg and Buff87. If you use time+, or you run “all major, all the time“ in EZ-Winscore, 3 gun scoring suddenly becomes very simple and very easy. To take it a step further, time+ would seem to be the best choice because it supports major/minor differentiation without complications and hassles. Like kurtm said earlier, PF is addressed at the target when you score time+.

As far as stage weighting goes, if you make each stage worth the same arbitrary number of points (say 100 like at RM3G) and you award those points like in USPSA, all to the stage winner and so on according to percentage of finish against the stage winner. The added plus of time+ is that the stage designer can insure proper engagement of harder targets by making them time off for successful engagement, or more than the usual time added for not engaging, or neutralizing.

I also agree with the sentiment that no matter what is actually done, the shooters will adjust.

As far as speed unloading goes, I am beginning to change my position towards hot weapon abandonment as being safer in the long run. I have been shooting multi-gun with on-the-clock weapon clearing for so long, it just seemed natural, but recently I have started to realize that it is actually better to just stop shooting a gun when it is time for the next one if you are trying to do it in a hurry. The time for clearing and racking is when you are NOT in a hurry. The application of the safety (or not if it’s a safe action type pistol like a Glock) and the placement of the gun in a muzzle control device designed to allow safe dump and run tactics is where I see us needing to go. IMHO, bare tables are the worst places to abandon guns hot, or cold.

--

Regards,

[warpspeed]

3 gun / multi gun needs to be scored the same as pistol only matches. We need to be consistent. If that presents problems for EzWinScore, then fix the software. If one gun is major pf and the other minor pf, the softeare needs to be able to acomodate.

I do not agree with the idea of all stage being equal match points at all.

[George]

I do not agree with the idea of all stage being equal match points at all

After the RM3G last year, I kinda felt that way until I thought about it a little, then some more, then suddenly it just seemed, shall we say, “reasonable”.

Having shot 3 gun under IMG rules and time+ scoring more often than not in the past few years at the larger matches I have been to, I am beginning to see the wisdom in that methodology whenever you do multi-gun stages. I am pretty much of the opinion now that if the software doesn’t get fixed Real Soon Now, that time+, and/or all one big happy PF family will be where we will wind up, like it, or not.

I also do not understand why “ALL“ of the complications of the pistol only competition structure have to inflexibly extend in all directions, for ever, and ever (think of a Rev. Lovejoy sermon here).

--

Regards,

[warpspeed]

The problem I have is if a competitor tanks a 160 point stage he should be more serverly penalized than the guy who blows an 80 point stage.

as for all one pf, I'm all for that. Score it all the same (major, minor - whatever) w/ a min pf floor.

[George]

The problem I have is if a competitor tanks a 160 point stage he should be more serverly penalized than the guy who blows an 80 point stage

You know what, with time+ you could very easily add up the actual target count in a given stage, work out the point value the way we do now, then use that point total for the stage weight and then time+ has stage weighting factored just like it is. In special cases you could value arbitrarily to keep it even. This would allow an 8 round rifle stage where it takes over 40 seconds for the best shooters to make the shots still be an important stage in comparison to a 52 round pistol/rifle/shotgun field course. Nothing says the stages have to be the same if the MD needs something different for a given situation. Lotsa ways to skin this cat with time+

--

Regards,

[uscbigdawg]

[uSPSA/IPSC Company Line Hat On]

Why penalize a shooter using a 12 ga shotgun and a .45 acp because he chooses to shoot an AR-15 over a .308?

The only problem that I have with IMGA scoring, from a USPSA (i.e. DVC: Speed, Power and Accuracy...sorry if I got 'em in the wrong order) is that it tends to not favor accuracy and power.

Under IMGA, two shots neutralizes a target regardless of location on the paper. There is no recognition of power (i.e. 308 gets one hit vs. two) or accuracy (A's are better than D's) at all.

With Time +, with the + crediting accuracy AND power by increased time added, this "solves" our association's dilemma of acknowledging, speed, power and accuracy. Too, it simplies life greatly by still falling under a basic Time + framework for scoring.

A = 0 seconds down (major/minor)

B = .5 seconds added (major)/1.0 seconds added (minor)

C = 1.0 seconds added (major)/2.0 seconds added (minor)

D = 2.0 seconds added (major)/4.0 seconds added (minor)

These are examples, but I think y'all get the idea. It's simple. The scoresheet, simply acknowledges ones raw time and then penalty time added (you can even do it per target like we have on our sheets now!). Then, like on classifiers with multiple strings, the computers will added the final net time (if you get a good RO that can cypher you can add it on the range too!). Scoring...Done!

From a stage design standpoint, this opens up all kinds of possibilities for time bonuses (which we can't do now) and VARYING added value steel (which we can't do now). Stage design now becomes a function of one's creativity and is solidified scoring wise later on (i.e. your MD/RM can come through and verify there are no holes where non engagement will be an advantage...which is much more easily limited under Time +). From a spectator standpoint (and competitor) standpoint it is much more logical and one can IMMEDIATELY determine who is ahead of who via net time on the stage (Hint: TELEVISION!). Whoever has the lowest time is the winner!

Whatever scoring method we go with, it should be fairly easy to adopt as there are very few countries within IPSC that can even own/host a 3-Gun match.

Whatcha think?

Rich

[uSPSA/IPSC Company Line Hat Off]

[George]

Under IMGA, two shots neutralizes a target regardless of location on the paper. There is no recognition of power at all

Hey Rich, I think an approximation of what you are looking for is possible with time+ (which is not necessarily IMGA). No one says IMGA specifications have to be followed. You can offer a couple different options for neutralizing a target and rewarding PF, or Accuracy.

Take this example:

Paper target neutralized (no time added) by any one of the following;

- 1 major rifle hit anywhere

- 1 shotgun slug hit anywhere

- 1 minor rifle A hit

- 1 major pistol A hit

- 2 minor rifle hits anywhere

- 2 major pistol hits anywhere

- 2 minor pistol C, or better hits

Each competitor has his rifle and pistol PF noted on his score sheet and the targets are read according to his PF combinations. This allows power and accuracy to be traded as you wish and lets the competitor choose the combination he is going to run with. This is only one possible set of target scoring rules that can be bounced around

I am not saying we should do this, but with time+ scoring (which is not necessarily IMGA as published) these choices can be made as many ways as you want and no software needs re-writing because all the scores are reduced to time right at the target face when scoring. This is KISS, or elegance in design if we are looking at the process as a whole.

Time+ is just plain more efficient and flexible than hit factoring and the gathering of a more complex data set at the targets and then transporting and entering that data into a half dozen, or more specific fields back at stats. Lots less process with approximately the same output is the end result here.

I am not arguing to switch to time+, but I am pointing out it’s simplicity and capability in comparison.

Our club computer was just plain gone one time and I scored a long gun match with a half dozen stages in an Excel spreadsheet on a laptop I brought in about 10 minutes total entry time.

BTW, you can actually do time+ scoring in EZ-Winscore by entering a specific number of A hits (which total desired weight for that stage) for each competitor per stage in addition to the actual time that was reduced at the targets. All competitors are entered as one big happy PF. Remember that PF is handled at the target so this gives the same output as an Excel spreadsheet, but with the reports/printouts in a more familiar format.

--

Regards,

[Sterling White]

Eric,

I've been doing some real life pondering now that I'm back from 3-g and my dad's memorial service. Gotta say that I feel very priveledged having someone like him always there cheering me on.

During my pondering sessions.....my thoughts ran back to Mike Gibsons match and the 3G Nats. One thing that I liked about the MGM was time penalties for misses (5, 10, even 60 seconds) so targets needed to be engaged and hit. There were also bonus targets at the MGM that gave the shooter credits if they performed certain drills, for example: if a shooter could spin a windmill type target then the shooter would earn a bonus of 20 seconds that would be deducted from the total time or hit a flag target with the rifle at 130 yards with the rifle and earn a 10 second bonus. With some quick analysis and calculated risks I found that it was worth the extra effort to get the hits while other times it was a wash. Matt B and others from AZ may have a different oppinion but I'm guessing not.

Its my oppinion that penalties should be severe enough whereby every target would require engagement regardless of scoring system. Am not sure if USPSA can work these type allowances into the rules and scoring system that we currently have without jeopardizing IPSC rule requirements....the speed, power, and accuracy balancing act!

I am not in favor of +1 or +2 seconds for major/minor. This would work well only if the targets are long distances (100 yards and beyond) but would not work well in the up close and personal targets....encouraging all A Hits which is not a big deal.

Just thoughts.... sterling

[tewlman]

i have been pondering this since 3gnats and have come to the conclusion that the all around best fix is just to modify ezwinscore to score major/minor on one stage. eriks idea of 1 hit major/ 2 minor is screwed! you try that and then some joker starts wanting to do that crap for pistol and the next thing you know we start changing the whole idea of our sport. ican't see it beening that big a deal to start scoring a stage on one gun till its complete, then move to the next.

btw, at the post match meeting i was in favor of making .223 major, but inretrospect i feel that is a bad idea also as it defies the nature of our sport.

If you dont feel it still gives large bores a fair shake then start a he-man class like other matches are doing, .45 pistol .308 rifle and pump shotgun. i guarantee you would not have much of a turn out, as the vast majority of shooters use .223.

at any rate, i feel that at this point in the game if you turn the tide away from .223, you are doing a large injustice to people like JP who have helped bring the competitive ar to what it is today.

my .02 cents, keep the change!

[Boulderado]

As someone who regularly shoots an AR and also an FAL in HeMan and heads-up 3-gun in my humble experience and in my humble opinion there is no way that a 20 round .308 semi auto rifle can compete, heads up with a 30 round .223 semi auto or similar rifle.

Now that we are seeing the delivery of some more affordable AR-10's from DPMS and Bushmaster this might change a little, but not much. Running a 16 inch .223 AR against a 16 inch .308 FAL heads-up, is like shooting a single stack 8 round 1911 against a 22 round .40 Para or STI.

The .308 has more weight for gun and ammo, WAY more recoil to recover from, 20 round magazine limit, and WAY more noise and muzzle blast to recover from than the .223 AR. The .308 is also way more expensive to shoot.

In MHO if you have not done a side by side comparison of shooting a stage with your AR and then a good .308 rifle, then you really need too. There is a HUGE difference. In almost every stage situation that I have shot, the .223 will let you go faster with more accuracy than the .308.

Hence, I believe the very easiest solution is the creation of a "Production .308 or larger" division similar to HeMan/Heavy Metal for USPSA 3-Gun .... simple. If and when the Division starts getting popular and more people clamor for the use of a scope on their .308, open up another division for "Tactical Big-Gun" or whatever name you choose.

The real idea is to have people shoot, have fun, compare their performance with their peers and gain RECOGNITION from the match sanctioning body. the more RECOGNITION that is available to hand out (More divisions) the more participants you get .... the more HAPPY shooters you have shooting.

Best to All

[lcarr]

One idea I've had for pistol, and I think would also be very interesting with rifle, is to do away with Major/Minor scoring, but for final score mutiply hit factor by power factor, i.e., score on a state would be (points * power factor)/time. For local matches, one could use declared power factors while for major matches the chronograph would give one's actual power factor. I'm not sure where the most competitive "point" on the scale would be, but I don't think one could argue that .308 was being short-changed, like making .223 major.

Don't the new rules lower major to the point where one could make it with one of the new AR calibers, like 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel? If so, it would seem that .223 is on its way out, anyway.

Lincoln

[Jim Norman]

One major problem with time plus scoring is that one long stage can offset the entire balance of the match. Example If the long rifle stage takes most shooters around 200 seconds, but some really good/lucky shooter smokes it in 100 seconds, he has 100 seconds to "spend on teh balance of the match. Say there are 5 more stages and everyone else shoots them in 20 seconds. Our rifle guru can shoot them in 35 and still win.

What we have done is to take the HF and give the High hit 100%, which we convert to 100 points, the rest of the shooters are scored off this percentage and get their percentage as points. Total up the points and you have a winner. All stages regardless of length are worth the same. You have to be well rounded in all skills.

Jim

[Paule]

The 6.8SPC can make major with a 20" barrel, 18" is marginal. The 6.5 grendel can make major more easily, due to the capability for longer (heavier) bullets, but magazine capacity will be a problem for awhile (at least).

The 6.8 has significantly more recoil that a .223, but still a lot less than a .308. The 6.8 is controllable full-auto with a good muzzle brake/comp, but without one it is a handful.

Just a thought, but is there any merit to considering the range of power factors resulting from various shotshells and coming up with an aggregate power factor system for defining major/minor? It seems that there might be a way to do it that would allow competitors to make some interesting decisions as to caliber/ammo combinations. With only a <520 PF for shotgun, there is no recognition for shooting 3 dram 1-oz loads (320 PF) versus 4 dram 1-1/4 oz ones (490 PF).

It would require more chronographing of competitor loads, as the actual PF would be needed to get an aggregate, but it could allow new calibers and level the playing field somewhat. With a major/minor threshhold of, for example, 925 PF, a shooter could choose 12 ga. 3-3/4 dram 1-1/4 oz shotshells (435 PF), a 16" 6.8spc rifle 115 Rem OTM ammo (300 PF), and a .45 acp, 230 gr (205 PF). Aggregate would be 940 PF and the combo would make major. A 9x19, .40SW, or .38 Super would not make it, but go to a .308 rifle and the smaller caliber pistols could still play in major. The lighter side would allow .223, 9mm, and low recoil shotshells to compete in the minor category.

This would not solve the scoring issues, but would at least make major/minor a constant from stage to stage.

[Neil Beverley]

Just a thought, but is there any merit to considering the range of power factors resulting from various shotshells and coming up with an aggregate power factor system for defining major/minor?  It seems that there might be a way to do it that would allow competitors to make some interesting decisions as to caliber/ammo combinations.  With only a <520 PF for shotgun, there is no recognition for shooting 3 dram 1-oz loads (320 PF) versus 4 dram 1-1/4 oz ones (490 PF). 

It would require more chronographing of competitor loads, as the actual PF would be needed to get an aggregate, but it could allow new calibers and level the playing field somewhat.  With a major/minor threshhold of, for example, 925 PF, a shooter could choose 12 ga. 3-3/4 dram 1-1/4 oz shotshells (435 PF), a 16" 6.8spc rifle 115 Rem OTM ammo (300 PF), and a .45 acp, 230 gr (205 PF). Aggregate would be 940 PF and the combo would make major.  A 9x19, .40SW, or .38 Super would not make it, but go to a .308 rifle and the smaller caliber pistols could still play in major.  The lighter side would allow .223, 9mm, and low recoil shotshells to compete in the minor category.

Paul

An interesting idea and perhaps eventually somebody thinking "outside the box" may come up with the solution.

Unfortunately I believe this idea is flawed because there needs to be a defined minimum PF per firearm type because of calibrating targets. There has already been an extensive debate (or two) in the USPSA/IPSC Rules Forum relating to popper calibration and HG PFs so I don't want to kick that off again. Instead I'll comment just on SG.

Targets need to represent a fair challenge to all. They have to be tested to fall at a nominated PF. For SG we have nominated a PF of 520 with the test cartridge factoring at 520 OR LESS. Note that the "or less" is different to HG and Rifle calibration criteria.

So if we allow an aggregated PF and the competitor opts for a SG PF of 435 then he may well face targets that will not fall no matter how well hit.

If we allow agrregated PFs and set min PFs for calibration, say 400 for SG we would then see a dumbing down of the target challenges because to set targets to comply with a PF of 400 would eliminate targets place at a greater distance. They have to be brought closer so as to fall when shot at the lower PF.

Personally I believe the PF needs to stay at a reasonable level to provide more options with regards to the target challenges. SG has a unique problem compared to HG and Rifle because of the spread of the shot.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Time out for a history lesson. Remember when you all learned that Copernicus was right, and Ptolemy was wrong? Well, the users of the Ptolemaic system had to make the method more and more complex to describe the solar system. But you know what? They were accurate. You could accurately plot astronomical observations and predictions using the Ptolemaic (wrong) system.

The strength and weakness of the scoring system we currently use is that it is subject to infinite adjustment on the part of the shooters. If you are behind after a stage or stages, you can suck it up and catch up. A match like the Bianchi Cup, where the standard is perfection, does not allow you to catch up after a mistake. Drop a plate, and you can't shoot the Mover better and make up for it.

Shooters adjust their performance to the stage, and the match, and their competition.

The hassle is that no one knows the final results until the computer has churned out the scores.

A "Time Plus" system is not adjustable. A "plus second" is a "plus second" regardless of target distance. At ten yards, if you miss the A, you're hosed, as you cannot make up a full second with a rifle or handgun at ten yards. If the target is 200 yards out, the second lost for a C hit is less time than you need to ensure an A hit. We have the perverse incentive to shoot precise close, and sloppy far.

I shoot ICORE, which is time-plus. If you shoot the targets at IPSC speed (and your name isn't Miculek) your score actually suffers. You can't shoot enough faster to make up for the added second every other target.

If we adjust time to account for the "perverse factor", we make one better and the other far worse.

And if we score all as time-plus, one second added per, we turn handgun into a speedy A hit match, and rifle into a hose-the-paperfest.

Comstock worked great when it was invented, with matchs of twenty or thirty shooters, in two or three stages, done in an afternoon, where everyone shot pretty much the same guns and same times. Every time we've added to it, its gotten kludgier. But it still works. Until we have an IPSC Copernicus, we have to keep adding complexity to the Comstock system. After all, it accurately describes the end results. It just isn't pretty getting there.

[Flexmoney]

I need to dive in and re-read this thread, but I can comment on Patricks last...

Good desciption of the difference between a variable hit-factor (like we currently use in USPSA) and a fixed hit factor (time plus scoring).

[Les Snyder]

two "C's" or better, no major or minor for pistol or rifle, same penalties (time added) regardless of gun for failure to neutralize, penalty for "failure to do right"... shoot the course as the designer intended rather than gaming it just because the designer was too worn out after a couple hours setting up in 90degree weather to add another sight barrier, while you were eating breakfast at McDonalds....a little compromise and courtesy is needed to overlook your personal "home court advantage" if you are a match director or course designer..

[tewlman]

les,

it sounds like you should keep (or start) shooting idpa.

[Paule]

Neil,

I see what you are saying and I don't disagree that SG is a potential challenge. However, I would argue that while distance increases the possiblility of engaging steel unsuccesfully, the failure is not always due to the PF of the shotshells used. As you said, pattern density is a factor, as is shot size. From what I see and hear, a lot of folks shoot 3 dram, 1-1/8 oz loads unless buckshot or slugs are specified. These are going to yield a PF of 385-390. Pepper poppers will usually go down out to 20-25 yards with an IC choke, but 30 is pushing it. However, a .650 turkey choke and the same load will take down the popper at 45-50 yards. I would venture that most steel set up for shotguns will easily go down with virtually any load if a majority of the pellets can be put on the target. If distance precludes that, then you either add velocity (hotter shells), or increase pellet size (a slug is one big pellet!). I doubt that anyone is routinely shooting any shotshells that meet a 520 PF. It would take a max load 3-1/2", 1-3/8 oz load to get there.

Today most people are shooting low power shotshells on the majority of targets because that is all that is required to engage them successfully. They don't shoot heavy field loads because they have much more recoil and slow them down. (Sounds like the argument against .308 versus .223, hmmm). What I am saying is that if you opted to shoot heavier shotshells in order to possibly shoot a smaller caliber rifle or pistol it could make the competitions all the more interesting, and bring calibers like the .308 back into mainstream competitive positions. Now there is no incentive to shoot any shotshell other than the lightest possible load that will take down the target, unless it requires a hole in paper (a slug). Doesn't mean that steel at a distance might require buckshot or even slugs, just that the predominance of shotgun targets can be shot with very light shells.

As to minimum PF calibration for pistol and rifle targets, the current minor PF floors would work fine. I guess someone might want to handload some really soft 9x19 loads, but it's not really a punishing round to start with! Most factory 115 and 124gr FMJ loads are pushing 150 PF, and almost any .223 55 gr will top 150 PF out of any barrel 16" or over. Plenty of shooters use 75 or 77gr loads for longer targets, or to buck wind, etc. Choices again.

I think that it would be more interesting if shotgun was handled differently. Now, there is no way to level the playing field, equipment-wise, because of the way SG is treated. There is no major/minor (it is really minor for everyone). If there were a distinction, it would be easier to get some of the bigger caliber rifles into the mix. My thought on the aggregate idea was to eliminate the "three separate matches within a match" conundrum., and make it a 3-gun match, in either major or minor classificaton.

Paul

[Patrick Sweeney]

The kludge of Comstock is made worse by using it in 3-gun. It's bad enough that we're trying to use the same measuring system to describe the results of a close, fast hosefest of a stage, and a large field course with hard shots.

But to then use the same "ruler" to describe a rifle course, a shotgun course and combo stages is ludicrous.

That said, none of the options offered so far are any better. Time-plus simply uses a "ruler" with fewer markings on it. All the "one A or two hits anywhere neutralizes" systems make the measuring even coarser.

Just because a system is in common use someplace, or you find it comfortable to use, does not mean it is superior to Comstock. Were that the case, then we'd score rifle stages on NRA High Power targets. A thousand 600 yard shooters in Camp Perry can't be wrong, can they?

The ideal scoring system would be:

Easy to explain, easy to administer, and easy to print results. It would be capable of measuring and recording fine gradations between shooting performances. It would provide a relevant scoring system for each firearm used. It would allow comparisons across firearm types, to total scores of 3-gun (or even 4, 5, and 6 gun matches) It would be a scoring system adjustable by the shooter by their performance.

All IPSC copernicus entrants, the line forms on the right.

[Les Snyder]

Tewlman...tried it... didn't care for it... but won't bad mouth it like a lot of their shooters do to USPSA .... trying to simplify the scoring process, but still keep it close to KyleL's match (which has a Vickers' part in the formula) which in my opinion is the premier tactical match in the country, and is the major focus to my 3gun participation .....rationale is from the old Paladin scoring to obtain 6 points, but negated the single shot "A" option.... two "B/C" minor pistol hits, two "B/C" minor rifle hits earn the 6 points...I shoot .45acp, and 16inch HBAR flat top .223, and 2 hits in the "C" with either should neutralize the target... keep people honest with course design...

I've shot a lot of matches in the last 22years and there were damn few Cadillacs on the prize table... regards

[Neil Beverley]

I'm a bit like Flex in that I really need to read all the comments again so please don't beat me up if I'm way off track.

This is very much a raw concept but may just trigger another train of thought from someone else so here goes. Hell, this may even have been proposed by someone else already.

From what I know of the MG Nationals certain targets per stage are nominated to be either rifle targets or HG targets or SG targets. A stage can have all 3.

Why not have a table which nominates which targets are allocated to which firearm type then per stage you know how many targets per gun type. It would mean summarising scores up to 3 times but that's not too bad. E.g, if 28 hits, split it to say 10 HG, 12 rifle and 6 SG. Score As, Bs, Cs and Ds in each section appropriately. Then apply Major/Minor per section within a stage as appropriate.

This requires a bit more time to set up a match scoring wise and the score sheets have to be printed differently but the decisions seem to be already taken because it's written into the stage briefing.

There is a problem if the competitor can choose which gun to shoot with. I haven't got my head round that yet but didn't seem to apply anyway at the MG Nationals.

The scoring program would need to be modified to provide 3 sections per stage but technically I don't see that as being too difficult. Points are then simply calculated and added to end up with a final HF.

This doesn't solve Patrick's problem that Comstock scoring leaves you blind as to how you are doing but I still haven't seen any method that I believe to be better than Comstock.

I could also ask is it correct that we do in fact know how we stand part way through a match. I ask this on 2 counts. First shouldn't we try to do our best per stage as we see the stage not as we see our standing in the match? Secondly if we make the information readily available competitors shooting on a second day have an unfair competitive advantage over those that shot the first day. Just a thought.

To summarise: change the scoring program to allow major and minor on every stage and score as per nominated gun type PFs and nominated gun type targets. In the example stage above we could end up with (say) 10 HG hits scored as Major + 12 Rifle hits scored as minor + 6 Shotgun hits scored as Major.

[Neil Beverley]

Neil,

I see what you are saying and I don't disagree that SG is a potential challenge. However, I would argue that while distance increases the possiblility of engaging steel unsuccesfully, the failure is not always due to the PF of the shotshells used. As you said, pattern density is a factor, as is shot size. From what I see and hear, a lot of folks shoot 3 dram, 1-1/8 oz loads unless buckshot or slugs are specified. These are going to yield a PF of 385-390. Pepper poppers will usually go down out to 20-25 yards with an IC choke, but 30 is pushing it. However, a .650 turkey choke and the same load will take down the popper at 45-50 yards.  I would venture that most steel set up for shotguns will easily go down with virtually any load if a majority of the pellets can be put on the target.  If distance precludes that, then you either add velocity (hotter shells), or increase pellet size (a slug is one big pellet!). I doubt that anyone is routinely shooting any shotshells that meet a 520 PF. It would take a max load 3-1/2", 1-3/8 oz load to get there.

Today most people are shooting low power shotshells on the majority of targets because that is all that is required to engage them successfully.  They don't shoot heavy field loads because they have much more recoil and slow them down. (Sounds like the argument against .308 versus .223, hmmm). What I am saying is that if you opted to shoot heavier shotshells in order to possibly shoot a smaller caliber rifle or pistol it could make the competitions all the more interesting, and bring calibers like the .308 back into mainstream competitive positions.  Now there is no incentive to shoot any shotshell other than the lightest possible load that will take down the target, unless it requires a hole in paper (a slug). Doesn't mean that steel at a distance might require buckshot or even slugs, just that the predominance of shotgun targets can be shot with very light shells.

Paul

Paul

As far as USPSA matches are concerned the 520 PF is now a fact of life but it is reasonably easy to attain. You only need, say, a 1 ounce load at 1200 fps (= 524).

The calibration criteria is that plates/poppers must fall when shot by a calibration gun factoring 520 OR LESS. Maximum barrel length – 66 cms (26 inches).

True cylinder or open choked barrel. Birdshot size 7 or 7 1/2.

The minimum permitted distance for shooting slug at metal targets is 40m so that isn't an option for most Cs of F.

[KyleL]

I tell you what, you are some smart fellas. We have had great success with our scoring system. It is simply a Excel spreadsheet that adds time for points dropped, time for No Shoots, time for misses, time for procedurals. All stages are worth the same amount of points, just make sure stages are worth enough points or alot of people will have zeros. 100 points will not work. Normally has to be 300-450 points per stage.

Of course we do use the Modified Lewis scoring system, it is a version I make up as I go. So far it has worked well, it also has helped to get more sponsors involved. They love it. It can be a crap shoot if you are not in the top 10, but we have a lot of happy competitors. Last year we gave out 26 guns.

Just my two Dinar,

Luckily no matter what you fellas come up with I don't have to follow..heheh

Just kidding.

God Bless the USA!!!!!!!

KyleL

NAT3G

[Patrick Sweeney]

Kyle,

I'm sure your system is easy, and you're comfortable with it. But adding time is an inflexible method from the shooters viewpoint.

Lets set up a "match" that magnifies the problems: We have two stages, a 200-300 yard rifle stage, and a 5 to 15 yard handgun stage. No matter how fast he shoots it, the handgun stage winner is not going to be more than 10-20 seconds faster than the average handgun shooter. 10-20 seconds might be the gap betweeen places on the rifle stage. Unless you found some way to make the total time of each stage roughly the same, the two stages aren't weighted the same.

A shooter could be withing five or ten seconds of the handguin winner, knowing they stand no chance whatsoever in the rifle stage, as they can't make up the short time. Or Vice-versa, the rifle winner, leading by twenty seconds, knows he can coast in the handgun stage. If all he does is walk, get decent hits, and doesn't drop his gun, he'll win, because no one can shoot the handgun stage enough faster to beat him.

In concrete terms, imagine if the Steel Challenge had a 200 yard handgun stage. Would it matter what your score was on the other stages, if you had a lucky and smoking run on the 200 yard stage? Who cares about blazing draws and fast shooting, all they can do is save you a few seconds on the rest of the match total. The match would be defined by the 200 yard stage, and the need to shave tens of seconds off one's time.

If you want a 3-gun match defined by the time to shoot the rifle stages, with all else just filler, great. Then long range rifle stages, scored by time-plus, is the way to go.

In USPSA/IPSC we're required by our founding principles to score all three aspects equally (Or at least proporitonal to their effect.) We can't call it a 3-gun match, if the only score that matters is the rifle score. Similarly, a match with ten handgun stages, one rifle and one shotgun isn't really a "3-gun" match.

The solution isn't easy, or we'd have come up wit one by now.