Approved for member review...

[mcb]

I am going to ramble...

I am, IMHO, a solid B-class Revolver shooter. Been shooting Revolver with a 610 since 2006 and a 625 since early last year. Now I just started shooting an 8-shot revolver (a whole one 4-stage club match under my belt ) but from that limited experience I am not sure 8-shots scored minor is going to make 6-shot major guns obsolete.

My reloads with my 627 are pretty bad, and no doubt will get better as I practice and load more friendly bullet shapes. Big fat 158gr JHP aint good if you're wondering. Even with better bullets and practice I don't think my 627 reloads will be consistently as fast as my 625. Even after several years of shooting my 610 within two or three matches my 625 reloads where noticeably better and more consistent than with my 610. Sure in idea conditions there should be no difference between a 625 and 627 reload but how often are the reloads in ideal conditions at a USPSA match? The chance of that loaded moonclip dancing on the cylinder rather than going in is always going to be higher with the 627 no mater how pointy your bullets are. The 625 practical vacuums those cartridges into the cylinder.

The most an 8-shot revolver will save you is two reloads and that is only on stages with 31 or 32 required rounds. Any other time it will only save you at best one reload. Stages with <7, 9-12, 17, 18 rds there is no reload advantage (ignoring array size/position)

It seems if you use enough targets on a stage that can be engage from more than one shooting location you can really make most stages 6/8 shot neutral. Not to mention keep the 6-shooters from having standing reloads.

Don't forget the minor scoring with its no penalty misses.

For the Grand Master Revolver shooters the minor 8-shot may be a sizable advantage, although I have my doubts. But for the A-C class shooters I think its going to be a wash. Some shooters are going to do better with 8-shot minor and some are going to do better with 6-shot major.

Personally I would love to see USPSA try 8-shot minor 6-shot major. That said if they don't make the change I am still going to shoot round guns and I would then use my 627 in production or L-10 for more trigger time and maybe embarrass a few bottom feeders on occasion. I won Limited-10 in that first club match with my 627.

[Carmoney]

mcb, that is an excellent post.

To expand on it a bit further:

Minor scoring sucks. Minor scoring is a very significant penalty. I shoot a lot of Production and SS-Minor, so I am fully familiar with the penalty imposed by minor scoring. A lot of die-hard revolver guys don't fully understand this and think the 8-minor shooters are just going to blaze through a stage at full speed and save a reload or two along the way--"making the 625 obsolete!"

Yeah, right. When you need more of those A hits, you can't go as fast and you can't shoot as much on the move. So you might save a reload, but you're moving through the stage in general at a slower pace, if you are still planning to get the same number of points. It's closer to a wash than most people realize.

[Wagonburner]

I agree with the post above,the 6 major will live on! I will be a participant to see this happen.The 8. Minor is a necessary addition to the division,"more is better" when talking about overall participants. USPSA is showing the proper action when addressing the needs and wants of their members.

[Bosshoss]

mcb, that is an excellent post.

To expand on it a bit further:

Minor scoring sucks. Minor scoring is a very significant penalty. I shoot a lot of Production and SS-Minor, so I am fully familiar with the penalty imposed by minor scoring. A lot of die-hard revolver guys don't fully understand this and think the 8-minor shooters are just going to blaze through a stage at full speed and save a reload or two along the way--"making the 625 obsolete!"

Yeah, right. When you need more of those A hits, you can't go as fast and you can't shoot as much on the move. So you might save a reload, but you're moving through the stage in general at a slower pace, if you are still planning to get the same number of points. It's closer to a wash than most people realize.

Mike while I won't disagree to a point here is some data from the Indiana sectional that I feel says that minor scoring won't make a huge difference. I know this is one match and one match only but everyone keeps saying 8 minor loses enough points in scoring to even the out the 2 extra shots vs 6 major. I have asked for data to show this and have seen none. So I thought I would throw this out there.

Indiana Sectional had 11 revolver shooter sign up but had 2 no shows.

The top 7 shooters are A and B class and all fairly evenly matched no matter what class they are in.(IMO)

We are friends and 6 of us were on 1 squad with 1 shooting the day before and RO'ing the rest of the match.

The COMBINED AVERAGE % of points shot MINUS penalties for the top 7 shooters was 94.86

I know that if I was shooting against any of these guys with a 6 Major and they were shooting 8 minor I would NOT be counting on minor scoring helping me try to make up for the difference of 8 rounds to my 6 rounds.

Here is the link should you wish to check my math remember I'm a revolver shooter and can only count to 6-- OH crap I guess I'm going to have to learn to count to 8

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-display-match-results-detail.php?indx=8758&division=Revolver&guntype=Pistol

All along I have asked for data that showed this to be a fair trade off with 8 minor vs 6 major. I have also asked about the classifiers and what will be done about the ones that will heavily favor the 8 shot guns. As a matter of fact I'm shooting one this weekend that is probably the worst one for favoring 8 shot guns. http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/03-08.pdf

I still have mixed feeling about all this. I would do whatever it takes to help the division grow but making changes without data or thinking things thru doesn't give me a good feeling about this.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Bosshoss

[mcb]

If you score them minor the average of the top 7 drops to 91.78. That ~3% drop in points. That would bump several of them down a place.

[Dragon11]

If you score them minor the average of the top 7 drops to 91.78. That ~3% drop in points. That would bump several of them down a place.

Just to look at the other side of the coin, I see your point with the drop in points. But that only takes into account the drop in points going to minor, how would that be effected or changed with having to do less reloads compared to the 6 shots?

[pskys2]

Minor is one reason I just can't get comfortable and enthused about Production.

Got to say though in the little bit of practice with the new 8 shooter, seems like the darn thing runs all day!

I keep dumping the cylinder with 1 or even 2 rounds still in it.

[Dragon11]

Minor is one reason I just can't get comfortable and enthused about Production.

Got to say though in the little bit of practice with the new 8 shooter, seems like the darn thing runs all day!

I keep dumping the cylinder with 1 or even 2 rounds still in it.

The same thing happens to me. You know what helps.....I think of the rounds as beer, and at least for me, it fixes the problem.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Dragon11

[Nik Habicht]

But seriously---why in the world would any of our board members want to quash this whole thing now, without even allowing a formal feedback phase to take place?

Gee, maybe they thought the discussion was too limited in scope? Is it possible that they wanted the option of discussing other directions for the division than the plan you've endorsed?

Maybe because they could see very little sense in transforming Revolver division from a "single competitive handgun platform division" into a different "single competitive handgun platform division?"

Maybe because Revolver is irrelevant as a consideration in their area?

I'm relatively certain that you're bright enough to be able to think of a few reasons to vote against the proposal.....

But rather than suggesting that you can't think of a reason, why not ask them?

[ChrisC]

If you score them minor the average of the top 7 drops to 91.78. That ~3% drop in points. That would bump several of them down a place.

But that's not taking into account the fewer reloads per stage that would have factored in faster times. Almost all the stages were 32 rounds and there were numerous stages that one step reloads were required that wouldn't have been if you had the two extra rounds.

[dcloudy777]

Yeah, right. When you need more of those A hits, you can't go as fast and you can't shoot as much on the move. So you might save a reload, but you're moving through the stage in general at a slower pace, if you are still planning to get the same number of points. It's closer to a wash than most people realize.

I hope you're right, Mike. I don't think you are, but you've been doing this a heck of a lot longer than I have, and I hope you're right.

[mcb]

If you score them minor the average of the top 7 drops to 91.78. That ~3% drop in points. That would bump several of them down a place.

But that's not taking into account the fewer reloads per stage that would have factored in faster times. Almost all the stages were 32 rounds and there were numerous stages that one step reloads were required that wouldn't have been if you had the two extra rounds.

Agreed, I recalculated the first place competitor, scoring minor and subtracting 3 seconds from all the stage times with 31 or 32 rds (7 of 9) 1.5 seconds from the 30 rd stage and nothing from the 18 rds stage. All the hit factor went up except the 18rd stage. The average across the 9 stages was a 4.5% increase in HF. The maximum gained was 20% and the one stage that went down was -13% loss in HF.

That said the overwhelming number of 31, 32 rds stages play in the the 8-shot's hand (these are the only size stages that get a 2 reload advantage) and as you said there where lot of one step reloads for the 6 shooters. Had there been a mix of long, medium and short stages and stages designed to be more 6/8 shot neutral by allow multiple engagement positions I think the 8-shot advantage is balanced by the Minor scoring and the shooters ability to think in 6's or 8's takes over.

To that end I am planning on shooting this weekend's match again with both guns (625 & 627) and see how my HFs compare. I suspect the LSWC 38 Specials (all I got at the moment) are not going to help my 8-shot HFs. Almost ready to reload LRN.

I am more than happy to crunch more numbers if it will help but I think its close enough to give it a try. Provisional change (is this even an realistic option) to the rules to get the required data to hash it out sound really good to me.

[Bosshoss]

If you score them minor the average of the top 7 drops to 91.78. That ~3% drop in points. That would bump several of them down a place.

But that's not taking into account the fewer reloads per stage that would have factored in faster times. Almost all the stages were 32 rounds and there were numerous stages that one step reloads were required that wouldn't have been if you had the two extra rounds.

Agreed, I recalculated the first place competitor, scoring minor and subtracting 3 seconds from all the stage times with 31 or 32 rds (7 of 9) 1.5 seconds from the 30 rd stage and nothing from the 18 rds stage. All the hit factor went up except the 18rd stage. The average across the 9 stages was a 4.5% increase in HF. The maximum gained was 20% and the one stage that went down was -13% loss in HF.

That said the overwhelming number of 31, 32 rds stages play in the the 8-shot's hand (these are the only size stages that get a 2 reload advantage) and as you said there where lot of one step reloads for the 6 shooters. Had there been a mix of long, medium and short stages and stages designed to be more 6/8 shot neutral by allow multiple engagement positions I think the 8-shot advantage is balanced by the Minor scoring and the shooters ability to think in 6's or 8's takes over.

To that end I am planning on shooting this weekend's match again with both guns (625 & 627) and see how my HFs compare. I suspect the LSWC 38 Specials (all I got at the moment) are not going to help my 8-shot HFs. Almost ready to reload LRN.

I am more than happy to crunch more numbers if it will help but I think its close enough to give it a try. Provisional change (is this even an realistic option) to the rules to get the required data to hash it out sound really good to me.

Thanks mcb for taking the time to do the math.

Another advantage for the 8 minor guns is when steel is involved. A lot of arrays with steel(locally at least) have 6 shots like 2 paper and 2 poppers or just 6 poppers. I know I can't miss(or shouldn't at least) but the 8 shot gun will let the speed go way up with make up shots possible.

Every match will be different some will have the 6 major guns with creative course breakdown on a somewhat even playing field while some matchs will bury the 6 major guns in a hole. The way it is now EVERYONE has the same problem to solve and it is ALL the shooter and not equipment.

Locally I don't see numbers going up as there is not a big ICORE pool to draw from here but some areas I can see the numbers going up but how many 6 major guys will dust off their autos and leave revolver division? I don't see this drawing ANY new shooters into the division as it kills the the most popular guns.

I will shoot whatever I really don't care anymore but I will probably be the only revolver shooter or 1 of 2 or 3 at the local matches just like I am now.

[mcb]

If you score them minor the average of the top 7 drops to 91.78. That ~3% drop in points. That would bump several of them down a place.

But that's not taking into account the fewer reloads per stage that would have factored in faster times. Almost all the stages were 32 rounds and there were numerous stages that one step reloads were required that wouldn't have been if you had the two extra rounds.

Agreed, I recalculated the first place competitor, scoring minor and subtracting 3 seconds from all the stage times with 31 or 32 rds (7 of 9) 1.5 seconds from the 30 rd stage and nothing from the 18 rds stage. All the hit factor went up except the 18rd stage. The average across the 9 stages was a 4.5% increase in HF. The maximum gained was 20% and the one stage that went down was -13% loss in HF.

That said the overwhelming number of 31, 32 rds stages play in the the 8-shot's hand (these are the only size stages that get a 2 reload advantage) and as you said there where lot of one step reloads for the 6 shooters. Had there been a mix of long, medium and short stages and stages designed to be more 6/8 shot neutral by allow multiple engagement positions I think the 8-shot advantage is balanced by the Minor scoring and the shooters ability to think in 6's or 8's takes over.

To that end I am planning on shooting this weekend's match again with both guns (625 & 627) and see how my HFs compare. I suspect the LSWC 38 Specials (all I got at the moment) are not going to help my 8-shot HFs. Almost ready to reload LRN.

I am more than happy to crunch more numbers if it will help but I think its close enough to give it a try. Provisional change (is this even an realistic option) to the rules to get the required data to hash it out sound really good to me.

Thanks mcb for taking the time to do the math.

Another advantage for the 8 minor guns is when steel is involved. A lot of arrays with steel(locally at least) have 6 shots like 2 paper and 2 poppers or just 6 poppers. I know I can't miss(or shouldn't at least) but the 8 shot gun will let the speed go way up with make up shots possible.

Every match will be different some will have the 6 major guns with creative course breakdown on a somewhat even playing field while some matchs will bury the 6 major guns in a hole. The way it is now EVERYONE has the same problem to solve and it is ALL the shooter and not equipment.

Locally I don't see numbers going up as there is not a big ICORE pool to draw from here but some areas I can see the numbers going up but how many 6 major guys will dust off their autos and leave revolver division? I don't see this drawing ANY new shooters into the division as it kills the the most popular guns.

I will shoot whatever I really don't care anymore but I will probably be the only revolver shooter or 1 of 2 or 3 at the local matches just like I am now.

With Steel I can see the pressure/no-room-for-mistake on an array with 6 shots hurting the 6-shooters, but a low hit with minor on a Pepper Popper can leave them standing far more often then a low hit with a 230gr 45.

Just my local experience, we have 3-4 Revolver shooters each month. Since talking up the 6-shot/8-shot at the last two club matches I have personally bought a 627 (been looking since late last year) and another friend that has never shot Revolver in USPSA has bought a 327 to play with.

I think its a coin flip on both its likely hood of increasing participation and displacing 625 for 627s. That said I don't think there will be a huge move on either in either direction.

[ed_henry]

mcb I will have you know I shot 6 stages with a revolver in the last 21 years and 1 match before that. Ha now that I have a 327 I will have to shoot more round gun.

[mcb]

mcb I will have you know I shot 6 stages with a revolver in the last 21 years and 1 match before that. Ha now that I have a 327 I will have to shoot more round gun.

Those 6 stages were with my revolver IIRC and I got classified in Open with your horribly noisy IMM gun that same weekend.

[ed_henry]

I shot Dick's 625. Bud shot your 610. Bud wants me to shoot the IMM next c^4 match

[Flexmoney]

According to the published minutes from the board meeting, the motion to approve the 8-minor option for discussion (i.e. member review and comment with a final vote in 90 days) was passed 6 to 3. The board members from Areas 5, 6, and 8 voted against it.

With all due respect to our capable and hard-working leadership, I'm having a hard time imagining why any of our board members--especially those who regularly participate here on this forum--would not at least be in favor of allowing the discussion to move forward on this issue.

I understand there are several valid points of view on the 8-minor issue, and 90 days from now I won't begrudge any of our board members for ultimately voting in a manner that they genuinely believe best represents the views of their respective Area constituencies.

But seriously---why in the world would any of our board members want to quash this whole thing now, without even allowing a formal feedback phase to take place?

Get in the room. (Meetings are open)

This whole thing was shoehorned into the agenda at the last possible minute...with NO prior discussion to speak of. And, then, when the meeting minutes came up for approval, a few of us had to...make a correction...on what was actually voted upon.

A Division change nearly slippery sloped in without much real discussion/debate. Wherever you fall on this particular issue...it deserves a good process.

[mcb]

The real reason 8-shot minor is going to screw up Revolver...

Chrono-stages! Think of the unfair advantage! The 8-shot gun just drops one moonclip in the chrono bag and away he goes. The 6-shot guy has to either put TWO moonclips in the bag, being out 4 extra rounds, or has to spend time stripping two rounds off a moonclip. Makes this whole 8-shot/6-shot thing pretty unworkable!!! I might need more sleep...

[Carmoney]

According to the published minutes from the board meeting, the motion to approve the 8-minor option for discussion (i.e. member review and comment with a final vote in 90 days) was passed 6 to 3. The board members from Areas 5, 6, and 8 voted against it.

With all due respect to our capable and hard-working leadership, I'm having a hard time imagining why any of our board members--especially those who regularly participate here on this forum--would not at least be in favor of allowing the discussion to move forward on this issue.

I understand there are several valid points of view on the 8-minor issue, and 90 days from now I won't begrudge any of our board members for ultimately voting in a manner that they genuinely believe best represents the views of their respective Area constituencies.

But seriously---why in the world would any of our board members want to quash this whole thing now, without even allowing a formal feedback phase to take place?

Get in the room. (Meetings are open)

This whole thing was shoehorned into the agenda at the last possible minute...with NO prior discussion to speak of. And, then, when the meeting minutes came up for approval, a few of us had to...make a correction...on what was actually voted upon.

A Division change nearly slippery sloped in without much real discussion/debate. Wherever you fall on this particular issue...it deserves a good process.

Oh, so I'm going to fly to Salt Lake City at my own expense to lobby for this? I'll leave that for those who will derive all the riches and huge personal gain from changing the Revolver rules.

Furthermore, this discussion has been among the liveliest ever on the BE Forum, and it was widely known that Phil Strader would be carrying the idea to the BOD for a vote. Phil talked about it openly and often. So, with all due respect, I don't think it's accurate to suggest that it was slipped into the agenda at the last minute.

I agree that changing the division deserves a real discussion/debate. Frankly, I think that debate has been hashed out to the point there is not much further to say, pro or con. But regardless, if an "official" comment and debate period is what the BOD actually voted on, then why would you not at least support the membership having that debate period? You routinely read every single post on the BE Forum. Of all the BOD members, your role as forum administrator puts you in the best position to recognize that a sizable portion of the revolver crowd--and arguably a significant majority of us--strongly supports this rule change.

I'm really disappointed in the three BOD members who apparently prefer to simply quash the whole issue.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Carmoney

[Tom E]

I'm really disappointed in the three BOD members who apparently prefer to simply quash the whole issue.

Same here, and one of them is from my area and I voted for him.

[Carmoney]

I don't want anybody to misunderstand me here. This is not personal.

I have a great deal of respect for all of our elected volunteer board members, and I truly believe they have the best interests of the membership at heart in their management of this organization. One reason for USPSA's success is that we have a well-conceived system of governance that is responsive to the membership.

I am disappointed in the response from the directors from A5, A6, and A8, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate everything they and the other board members do to help this organization succeed.

Just wanted to make the record clear.

[sperman]

Furthermore, this discussion has been among the liveliest ever on the BE Forum, and it was widely known that Phil Strader would be carrying the idea to the BOD for a vote. Phil talked about it openly and often. So, with all due respect, I don't think it's accurate to suggest that it was slipped into the agenda at the last minute.

Maybe Phil could spend a little less time talking "openly and often" and a little more time communicating with the board. Based on another thread, it appears that some of Phil's shooting buddies knew this would be presented at the BOD meeting, but the AD's weren't aware of it.

Maybe it wasn't the discussion those directors were opposed to, but the idea of the president adding an item to the agenda at the last minute with no effort to follow protocol. (This is purely speculation on my part, but seems like a reasonable explanation.)

[Carmoney]

Furthermore, this discussion has been among the liveliest ever on the BE Forum, and it was widely known that Phil Strader would be carrying the idea to the BOD for a vote. Phil talked about it openly and often. So, with all due respect, I don't think it's accurate to suggest that it was slipped into the agenda at the last minute.

Maybe Phil could spend a little less time talking "openly and often" and a little more time communicating with the board. Based on another thread, it appears that some of Phil's shooting buddies knew this would be presented at the BOD meeting, but the AD's weren't aware of it.

Maybe it wasn't the discussion those directors were opposed to, but the idea of the president adding an item to the agenda at the last minute with no effort to follow protocol. (This is purely speculation on my part, but seems like a reasonable explanation.)

The minutes indicate that the agenda was properly amended to include the revolver rule issue--it appears that protocol was in fact followed. Unless the minutes were altered as part of a devious plot by those who derive great financial gain from the 8-minor option........

Bottom line--this issue has been perfectly well-known to the BOD. The opposition has been heavily campaigning the BOD for many months. None of this is any surprise.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Carmoney

[No.343]

At this point, I would like the BOD to vote as soon as they can. I have some decisions to make.