Tac Irons / Limited Division

[Mike P]

IMO most perceived advantages/disadvantages due to differing equipment can be for the most part eliminated through stage design, at least at club level matches.

[Alaskapopo]

IMO most perceived advantages/disadvantages due to differing equipment can be for the most part eliminated through stage design, at least at club level matches.

Counter point. Why should we make stages easier for some types of guns or equipment. That is what divisions are for. I don't want to make short shotgun courses with 12 rounds or less because not everyone has an AKDAL or a Saiga. I don't think dumbing down the courses of fire does anything other than make the match less fun.

Pa

[EaZeNuTZ33]

IMO most perceived advantages/disadvantages due to differing equipment can be for the most part eliminated through stage design, at least at club level matches.

Counter point. Why should we make stages easier for some types of guns or equipment. That is what divisions are for. I don't want to make short shotgun courses with 12 rounds or less because not everyone has an AKDAL or a Saiga. I don't think dumbing down the courses of fire does anything other than make the match less fun.

Pa

I agree. You still want to complex courses of fire you would always provide, but you may want to look at your par times to see if the average shooter in that division could finish.

[BobS761]

Maybe an over simplification, but I think shoot what you have until you get what you want to be where you want. As for standings in a match, a first year guy isn't IMO going to jump way up or fall way back adding or taking away any optic on anything.

[Alaskapopo]

IMO most perceived advantages/disadvantages due to differing equipment can be for the most part eliminated through stage design, at least at club level matches.

Counter point. Why should we make stages easier for some types of guns or equipment. That is what divisions are for. I don't want to make short shotgun courses with 12 rounds or less because not everyone has an AKDAL or a Saiga. I don't think dumbing down the courses of fire does anything other than make the match less fun.

Pa

I agree. You still want to complex courses of fire you would always provide, but you may want to look at your par times to see if the average shooter in that division could finish.

I am agree on that. The way I feel is that 80% of the shooters should be able to complete the course of fire. If more than that can't do it its too hard. Now if everyone even the newest shooter can blaze through it then its probably too easy.

Pat

[DyNo!]

Yep 40 for me as well, Hitting steel means never looking back! I don't load down either good old 168 PF 180,s for me! If you want more "seperation" in classes go race SCCA!

Seconded!

[Mike P]

IMO most perceived advantages/disadvantages due to differing equipment can be for the most part eliminated through stage design, at least at club level matches.

Counter point. Why should we make stages easier for some types of guns or equipment. That is what divisions are for. I don't want to make short shotgun courses with 12 rounds or less because not everyone has an AKDAL or a Saiga. I don't think dumbing down the courses of fire does anything other than make the match less fun.

Pa

I didn't say anything about making stages easier, shorter or dumber.

For example, while not eliminating mag capacity advantage entirely, movement between target and target arrays will provide time to reload or in the case of SG more time to reload. Another thing would be making rifle targets VISIBLE, paticularly long range rifle targets. Low ports, high ports, difficult shooting positions, all can be used to even up equipment disparity IF you want to make stages heads up friendly.

[Langenator]

I have, in the past, shot a match with my M1 Garand...simply because I could. Because it was fun. I had an AR, with a 1-4x scope. Or an EOTech, if I wanted.

Once I replace the firing pin, I'll probably bust out the Garand again, because it's fun. Even though the local club doesn't have any 'special' rules for He-Man/Heavy Metal (i.e. .30 cal rifle/.45 pistol only need 1 hit on cardboard). Why? Because PING!, that's why.

Added: Oh, and .30-06 M2 ball works great on spinners.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Langenator

[Alaskapopo]

IMO most perceived advantages/disadvantages due to differing equipment can be for the most part eliminated through stage design, at least at club level matches.

Counter point. Why should we make stages easier for some types of guns or equipment. That is what divisions are for. I don't want to make short shotgun courses with 12 rounds or less because not everyone has an AKDAL or a Saiga. I don't think dumbing down the courses of fire does anything other than make the match less fun.

Pa

I didn't say anything about making stages easier, shorter or dumber.

For example, while not eliminating mag capacity advantage entirely, movement between target and target arrays will provide time to reload or in the case of SG more time to reload. Another thing would be making rifle targets VISIBLE, paticularly long range rifle targets. Low ports, high ports, difficult shooting positions, all can be used to even up equipment disparity IF you want to make stages heads up friendly.

By visible if you mean a contrasting back then I agree. If by visible you mean larger then not so much. I think 4 MOA is a good standard to keep long range targets at. I think that you should not think about division or equipment when you set up a stage. Set up a fun stage and then see how people stack up. We have different divisions for a reason. In my mind trying to make stages equipment netral is like trying to design a revolver friendly USPSA match. It ends up being great for the revolver guys and boring for the rest of us. If i want to compete heads up against the guys in another divison I will run that equipment and sign up for that division.

Pat

[guns_and_labs]

IMO most perceived advantages/disadvantages due to differing equipment can be for the most part eliminated through stage design, at least at club level matches.

Counter point. Why should we make stages easier for some types of guns or equipment. That is what divisions are for. I don't want to make short shotgun courses with 12 rounds or less because not everyone has an AKDAL or a Saiga. I don't think dumbing down the courses of fire does anything other than make the match less fun.

Pa

Wait a sec. I thought divisions were there so that you had an excuse to shoot in both of them and get twice as much trigger time.

[Lead-Head]

When building stages at locals we have a few criteria, none are based upon catering to any division.

Other than not having anything unsafe jump out at us: It has to be a stage we would want to shoot, some shooters may get caught on some stages, but even if you time out it you should be in your last position, it should challenge the strongest shooters skills, at least a couple stages should make every shooter scratch their head a little when trying to decide how to shoot it. Should be entertaining.

We look at scores/time outs/ shooter feedback each match and factor that info into planning our next match.

In Nov. we had a match that with 200sec timeout stages, a good bit harder than usual local, and maybe even some majors. 4 stages in a day. Lots of time outs, but lots of smiles and emails wanting to know "when do we get to do that again?"

Edited February 12, 2014 by Lead-Head

[EaZeNuTZ33]

I have, in the past, shot a match with my M1 Garand...simply because I could. Because it was fun. I had an AR, with a 1-4x scope. Or an EOTech, if I wanted.

Once I replace the firing pin, I'll probably bust out the Garand again, because it's fun. Even though the local club doesn't have any 'special' rules for He-Man/Heavy Metal (i.e. .30 cal rifle/.45 pistol only need 1 hit on cardboard). Why? Because PING!, that's why.

Added: Oh, and .30-06 M2 ball works great on spinners.

somin bout a single shot almost flipping the MGM flasher over! and the loud BANG

[BobS761]

When building stages at locals we have a few criteria, none are based upon catering to any division.Other than not having anything unsafe jump out at us: It has to be a stage we would want to shoot, some shooters may get caught on some stages, but even if you time out it you should be in your last position, it should challenge the strongest shooters skills, at least a couple stages should make every shooter scratch their head a little when trying to decide how to shoot it. Should be entertaining.We look at scores/time outs/ shooter feedback each match and factor that info into planning our next match.In Nov. we had a match that with 200sec timeout stages, a good bit harder than usual local, and maybe even some majors. 4 stages in a day. Lots of time outs, but lots of smiles and emails wanting to know "when do we get to do that again?"

It was probably the most fun 3 gun match of my very short career! Yes, I timed out on some, and it was on my last shooting position. That was mostly inexperience, though. I can't wait for a similar setup, even with the quarter sized kd steel, (could have been my glasses lol).

[ac4wordplay]

By visible if you mean a contrasting back then I agree. If by visible you mean larger then not so much. I think 4 MOA is a good standard to keep long range targets at. I think that you should not think about division or equipment when you set up a stage. Set up a fun stage and then see how people stack up. We have different divisions for a reason. In my mind trying to make stages equipment netral is like trying to design a revolver friendly USPSA match. It ends up being great for the revolver guys and boring for the rest of us. If i want to compete heads up against the guys in another divison I will run that equipment and sign up for that division.

Pat

"Fun" for whom? "Fun" by what measure? It's not universal - and it can be equipment/division sensitive.

[Alaskapopo]

By visible if you mean a contrasting back then I agree. If by visible you mean larger then not so much. I think 4 MOA is a good standard to keep long range targets at. I think that you should not think about division or equipment when you set up a stage. Set up a fun stage and then see how people stack up. We have different divisions for a reason. In my mind trying to make stages equipment netral is like trying to design a revolver friendly USPSA match. It ends up being great for the revolver guys and boring for the rest of us. If i want to compete heads up against the guys in another divison I will run that equipment and sign up for that division.

Pat

"Fun" for whom? "Fun" by what measure? It's not universal - and it can be equipment/division sensitive.

Well you can't please everyone all the time I guess. By dumbing down a stage and making it lower capacity so guys with shotguns don't have to load as much you are taking the challenge out and the fun. I shoot both open and tac optics and having to load more in tac optics with my shotgun does not bother me or make it less fun. It makes it more fun actually as loading the shotgun is part of the game. I hate it when match directors try to design stages to make it easier for any division. Sorry but in my opinion that is the wrong way to do things. We all chose the divisions we shoot if a stage is better for an open shooter due to round count I say tough get over it. I am not saying every stage should be a high round count field course but all the stages should not be 8 to 12 round shotgun stages either. Saps the fun right out of the match to have everything be easy.

Pat

Edited February 14, 2014 by Alaskapopo

[co-exprs]

By visible if you mean a contrasting back then I agree. If by visible you mean larger then not so much. I think 4 MOA is a good standard to keep long range targets at. I think that you should not think about division or equipment when you set up a stage. Set up a fun stage and then see how people stack up. We have different divisions for a reason. In my mind trying to make stages equipment netral is like trying to design a revolver friendly USPSA match. It ends up being great for the revolver guys and boring for the rest of us. If i want to compete heads up against the guys in another divison I will run that equipment and sign up for that division.

Pat

"Fun" for whom? "Fun" by what measure? It's not universal - and it can be equipment/division sensitive.

Well you can't please everyone all the time I guess. By dumbing down a stage and making it lower capacity so guys with shotguns don't have to load as much you are taking the challenge out and the fun. I shoot both open and tac optics and having to load more in tac optics with my shotgun does not bother me or make it less fun. It makes it more fun actually as loading the shotgun is part of the game. I hate it when match directors try to design stages to make it easier for any division. Sorry but in my opinion that is the wrong way to do things. We all chose the divisions we shoot if a stage is better for an open shooter due to round count I say tough get over it. I am not saying every stage should be a high round count field course but all the stages should not be 8 to 12 round shotgun stages either. Saps the fun right out of the match to have everything be easy.

Pat

Agreed

[Mike P]

By visible if you mean a contrasting back then I agree. If by visible you mean larger then not so much. I think 4 MOA is a good standard to keep long range targets at. I think that you should not think about division or equipment when you set up a stage. Set up a fun stage and then see how people stack up. We have different divisions for a reason. In my mind trying to make stages equipment netral is like trying to design a revolver friendly USPSA match. It ends up being great for the revolver guys and boring for the rest of us. If i want to compete heads up against the guys in another divison I will run that equipment and sign up for that division.

Pat

"Fun" for whom? "Fun" by what measure? It's not universal - and it can be equipment/division sensitive.

Well you can't please everyone all the time I guess. By dumbing down a stage and making it lower capacity so guys with shotguns don't have to load as much you are taking the challenge out and the fun. I shoot both open and tac optics and having to load more in tac optics with my shotgun does not bother me or make it less fun. It makes it more fun actually as loading the shotgun is part of the game. I hate it when match directors try to design stages to make it easier for any division. Sorry but in my opinion that is the wrong way to do things. We all chose the divisions we shoot if a stage is better for an open shooter due to round count I say tough get over it. I am not saying every stage should be a high round count field course but all the stages should not be 8 to 12 round shotgun stages either. Saps the fun right out of the match to have everything be easy.

Pat

You keep coming back to lower round count, I never said that. All I suggested was to incorporate movement and or multiple shooting positions, neither of which neccessarily makes a stage easier or less challenging.

IMO the challenge is what makes it fun, not the # of rounds.

YMMV

[Alaskapopo]

By visible if you mean a contrasting back then I agree. If by visible you mean larger then not so much. I think 4 MOA is a good standard to keep long range targets at. I think that you should not think about division or equipment when you set up a stage. Set up a fun stage and then see how people stack up. We have different divisions for a reason. In my mind trying to make stages equipment netral is like trying to design a revolver friendly USPSA match. It ends up being great for the revolver guys and boring for the rest of us. If i want to compete heads up against the guys in another divison I will run that equipment and sign up for that division.

Pat

"Fun" for whom? "Fun" by what measure? It's not universal - and it can be equipment/division sensitive.

Well you can't please everyone all the time I guess. By dumbing down a stage and making it lower capacity so guys with shotguns don't have to load as much you are taking the challenge out and the fun. I shoot both open and tac optics and having to load more in tac optics with my shotgun does not bother me or make it less fun. It makes it more fun actually as loading the shotgun is part of the game. I hate it when match directors try to design stages to make it easier for any division. Sorry but in my opinion that is the wrong way to do things. We all chose the divisions we shoot if a stage is better for an open shooter due to round count I say tough get over it. I am not saying every stage should be a high round count field course but all the stages should not be 8 to 12 round shotgun stages either. Saps the fun right out of the match to have everything be easy.

Pat

You keep coming back to lower round count, I never said that. All I suggested was to incorporate movement and or multiple shooting positions, neither of which neccessarily makes a stage easier or less challenging.

IMO the challenge is what makes it fun, not the # of rounds.

YMMV

We have different discussions going on. I am not against movement. However I am also not against having a stage with forced standing reloads from time to time. Its all about variety to me.

Pat

[BobS761]

I'm no expert shooter, or even anything close to stage designer. But as an best middle of the pack finisher, here is what I like. Hoser stages, puzzle stages, gotcha stages, risk-reward stages. Oh nevermind, I like them all. But basically, I don't think anyone wants all easy stages. We can do that at a range by ourselves. Otherwise, why bother going to a match? As for different divisions, I always figured that is dependent on what someone likes to shoot, not how an MD sets up a match.

[Alaskapopo]

I'm no expert shooter, or even anything close to stage designer. But as an best middle of the pack finisher, here is what I like. Hoser stages, puzzle stages, gotcha stages, risk-reward stages. Oh nevermind, I like them all. But basically, I don't think anyone wants all easy stages. We can do that at a range by ourselves. Otherwise, why bother going to a match? As for different divisions, I always figured that is dependent on what someone likes to shoot, not how an MD sets up a match.

I agree variety is nice. At the match we host up here I have 4 different stage designers and we each design 2 stages. That way we get some variety as we all like different things.

Pat

[Lead-Head]

As long as you are a 3gn club, like we are at it local club, at least one stage will be fast and easy. The classifier.

The rest have to add variety and entertainment value for those not crazy about 7-25 second stages.

Of course some folks love these short fast stages. I recently saw footage of a match where the winners avg time was less than 20 sec per stage. Over 8 stages.

[EaZeNuTZ33]

As long as you are a 3gn club, like we are at it local club, at least one stage will be fast and easy. The classifier.

The rest have to add variety and entertainment value for those not crazy about 7-25 second stages.

Of course some folks love these short fast stages. I recently saw footage of a match where the winners avg time was less than 20 sec per stage. Over 8 stages.

I wouldn't mind a match like that from time to time (not all the time or overly common), but would want 10-12 stages instead of 8. Would be fun to say "XYZ match is a burner, bring redbull, cleates, clothes you can sprint in, plus bio freeze and Tylenol"

[Lead-Head]

Some clubs are having classifier matches. Like we used to do in Bardstown for USPSA. Come and get classified in more than one div. all in a day. I get it. It can be a big time/travel saver for those who want to rack up some scores. A convenience thing.

I however, have been spoiled, and I know it. Ruined by matches like BRM and TFD for years. Just another character flaw to ad to my long list.

[Bryan 45]

If I can hold my breath from start to finish, the stage isn't long enough.

[ac4wordplay]

By visible if you mean a contrasting back then I agree. If by visible you mean larger then not so much. I think 4 MOA is a good standard to keep long range targets at. I think that you should not think about division or equipment when you set up a stage. Set up a fun stage and then see how people stack up. We have different divisions for a reason. In my mind trying to make stages equipment netral is like trying to design a revolver friendly USPSA match. It ends up being great for the revolver guys and boring for the rest of us. If i want to compete heads up against the guys in another divison I will run that equipment and sign up for that division.

Pat

"Fun" for whom? "Fun" by what measure? It's not universal - and it can be equipment/division sensitive.

Well you can't please everyone all the time I guess. By dumbing down a stage and making it lower capacity so guys with shotguns don't have to load as much you are taking the challenge out and the fun. I shoot both open and tac optics and having to load more in tac optics with my shotgun does not bother me or make it less fun. It makes it more fun actually as loading the shotgun is part of the game. I hate it when match directors try to design stages to make it easier for any division. Sorry but in my opinion that is the wrong way to do things. We all chose the divisions we shoot if a stage is better for an open shooter due to round count I say tough get over it. I am not saying every stage should be a high round count field course but all the stages should not be 8 to 12 round shotgun stages either. Saps the fun right out of the match to have everything be easy.

Pat

I didn't suggest "dumbing down a stage", "making it lower capacity", nor did I mention shotguns.

I did recognize that "fun" can be defined differently by different people (and that equipment/division may be a factor).

There are people who are new (or even not-so new) to the shooting sports, and feel that any shooting is "fun". I've seen lots of "less experienced" participants have some "fun" on really crap stages. Others (often the more experienced participants) may be considerably more critical, and demanding of good stage/match design, execution, etc. When I was young and sex was new to me, any/all sex that I got was awesome. Now, nowhere near as young and having had a lot of sexual experience, I'm much more demanding/critical of my partners and recognize that there is a continuum (actually more complicated, with many factors, but for the purposes of this discussion "continuum" will suffice) - anything less than "excellent" sex is a fail.

I've shot/worked enough stages that hadn't been "dumbed down", yet were crap stages... and I've shot/worked enough steel challenge stages, etc., (straight-forward, not complicated), yet were fun/challenging and clearly tested certain skills when competing... that I'm not convinced that a more-complicated stage (meaning: a stage that hasn't been "dumbed down") is any measure of a "fun" or "good" stage.

Respectfully,

ac