uspsa scoring for minor

[bigbrowndog]

before anyone loses their hair about this topic, i couldn't find a category for 3 gun pistol........ at the 3 gun nationals whenever minor caliber weapons were fired the scoring zones that were less than A's were blacked out, due to scoring program incapabilities, or ease of scoring whatever..... at that point would it not be an advantage to shoot minor caliber pistol as well, if you gotta aim for A's anyway why not shoot, minor loads and more ammo in your gun?

if someone has insight into this situation, please lets discuss this. if i'm off my rocker or if the problem has been solved by the rules commitee, could someone fill me in. thanks trapr

[bgary]

The short answer to your question is that it would be a disadvantage on any stage where the pistol was the "scored firearm". In other words, you would be shooting minor on the pistol stages, too, not just the rifle or shotgun stages where you "also" shoot pistol at A-zone only targets.

The longer answer is, no, the rules committee has not yet reached a consensus on how to solve this. If you have ideas, pass them along. The challenge is to be able to score multi-gun stages without "throwing out" power factor, since it is one of the three pieces of DVC.

Bruce

[Flexmoney]

If you have ideas, pass them along. The challenge is to be able to score multi-gun stages without "throwing out" power factor, since it is one of the three pieces of DVC.

Bruce

I still think that ALL the guns/rounds should make Major to be scored Major.

bbd,

I like your thinking...the if I am shooting all Alphas, I might as well be shooting Minor theory. (Makes sense of pistol classifiers too. )

[Religious Shooter]

I still think that ALL the guns/rounds should make Major to be scored Major.

-1

[bigbrowndog]

Flex, do i understand you correct that a minor caliber receive less penalty for mikes and no shoots, or did i misunderstand your point. trapr

[MattBurkett]

I have an idea, DUMP the USPSA scoring system for 3 Gun. Hint, hint, it doesn't work, takes forever, is nearly impossible to score well, isn't understandable, etc..... Just adopt the IMG rules. Of course that would be way toooo easy. Of course people may shoot USPSA 3 gun matches more then and the sport would grow. Hmm.

Isn't the SMM3g larger than the 3 Gun Nationals?

Sorry for the rant, it is just an irritating system.

[CWG.223]

ok, seeing as how I am new to 3 gun and only shot in little local matches where major/minor means nothing....what exactly are major/minor power factors and how will it effect me trying to shoot some of the bigger matches?

[Liota]

The short answer to your question is that it would be a disadvantage on any stage where the pistol was the "scored firearm". In other words, you would be shooting minor on the pistol stages, too, not just the rifle or shotgun stages where you "also" shoot pistol at A-zone only targets.

The longer answer is, no, the rules committee has not yet reached a consensus on how to solve this. If you have ideas, pass them along. The challenge is to be able to score multi-gun stages without "throwing out" power factor, since it is one of the three pieces of DVC.

Bruce

Bruce,

Contact Kelly McCoy in San Angelo, TX. He has figured out how to score 3-Gun in a manner that isn't a pain in the butt and recognizes power factor. It works. We've used it at both of the TX State 3-Gun Championships with little or no trouble.

Trapr,

The penalties are the same. You still get hit as severely, just like with pistol only. Of course, you also get hit with the additional "Penalty" of less points for B, C and D hits with minor.

Give Scout a pat and a hug. He's such a cutie.

L

[George]

<soapbox mode on>

There are a lot of ways to ‘skin the cat‘ of making USPSA scoring fit 3gun or more correctly, making 3gun fit USPSA scoring.

We run our local matches one size fits all on PF and level a few of the other USPSA/EZWinscore humps with some logical decisions and it works out OK for us. But I am of the opinion nowadays that Matt is right on the money. It is pretty much a losing battle to work so hard to make a square peg fit an oval hole. I would rather see sensibility rule the day and IMG type scoring run 3gun.

It screws with the actual game any other way and I am not in favor of that anymore. Let’s stop tying a huge millstone around the necks of 3gun stage designers and make the sport more fun instead of more complicated.

<soapbox mode off>

--

Regards,

Edited December 17, 2004 by George

[MattBurkett]

Bad George! Bad! You know you aren't supposed to use logic and common sense to make everything easier for shooters and MD's. Knock it off!

"Let’s stop tying a huge millstone around the necks of 3gun stage designers and make the sport more fun instead of more complicated."

Hehehehe, Merry Christmas or Happy Whatever!

[bgary]

I'm with you guys (really!)

I want to make three-gun/multi-gun work. And, by "work", I mean fun for shooters, easy to understand, easy to score, easy to run.

Want proof? Take a look at the USPSA 3-gun nats this year. I wrote the rules for that. Yeah, they weren't perfect (they were an experiment, attempting to take the best of IMG, IM, RM3G, SMM3G, etc and morph them into something that would be "legal" in USPSA, on short notice)... but the bottom line is, multi-gun stages were legal in a USPSA match for the first time in history. That's... at least a *little* progress.

As I have mentioned in other threads, there are two challenges that I think we need to consider in the way we (USPSA) resolve this:

1) We need to write rules that work not just at big, one-off matches, but throughout USPSA. That means making rules work for 400+ clubs, including those clubs where members have never seen anything about 3-gun except what they read in Front Sight, and in the rule book. We have to make sure they can do it safely, and consistently.

2) We need to figure out what "DVC" means in the context of 3-gun. It is one of the main tenets of our sport... accuracy under time pressure, and considering power as part of the scoring. It is one of the things that makes us different from all the other sports out there, and it has held up for 25 years pretty well so far. So, do we just throw it out for 3-gun? Do we figure out a way to stuff three-gun into a DVC framework? Do we ... I don't know, do something else? Not clear - there is a lot of discussion going on right now.

I'll tell you where *I* am at the moment. I "get" that the USPSA scoring system doesn't work for multi-gun. I'm only a B-class shooter, but I am a GM-level stats guy, so I fully understand the complexities of trying to fit multi-gun stages into EZWinScore (probably better than most).

At the same time, most of the proposals I've heard don't really seem to solve the problem. Most of the proposals I've heard consist of two things

1) get rid of power-factor

2) go to "time-plus" scoring

But... it seems to me that both of those have problems.

Power factor, OK, so lets say we get rid of power factor? On one level, if we say "everything must be major", that's fine. But what about IronMan? It is one of the areas of 3-gun that is getting the most attention. If we don't recognize power in some way, is IronMan "just another class"? If we *do* want to score IronMan differently (eg, one "Major" hit or two "minor" hits to neutralize)... then... we gotta figure out a way to include power in the scoring.

And Time Plus is attractive in some ways. Give a time penalty for mikes or no-shoots. Give a lesser penalty for inadequate scoring hits. etc. But the problem becomes one of "how much is the penalty?" A 5-second penalty for a Mike on a speed shoot is a Death Penalty. A 5-second penalty for a hit on an 8" plate at 300 yards is a no-brainer - it is not worth taking the shot. So.... we either have to have variable target values (i.e., that plate is worth 50 points), or we gotta have variable time penalties (eg, a mike on that plate costs 20 seconds) to make it worth shooting. Either way, we've added complexity back into the scoring, if what we want to do is count accuracy *and* time *and* power.

I'm personally an advocate of writing a scoring program just for multi-gun. Leave the pistol scoring program alone, it works well enough. But if multi-gun is going to grow (and I think we all want it to), I think we need to come up with scoring that "works" for it.

And, I'd like to find a way to do that without throwing out DVC.

$.02

Bruce

[JFlowers]

What about not allowing paper targets for more than 1 weapon on a stage?

Follow my thinking here.... Lets say James is shooting a P15 in 45 making major and an AR15 in .223 making minor. If a stage is paper targets for the pistol and steel for the rifle then the minor/major combination is not a problem as steel measure minor/major on its own not by scoring. The same goes if its paper for the rifle and steel for the pistol. Since steel is an "A", then it should not matter.

Does this limit 3-Gun... yes, but meets the current limitations of USPSA scoring through stage design rather than by paper manipulation at the Stats Shack. I have heard that at some matches, certain targets were painted black for hardcover except for the "A" zone.... same idea as mine. All this means that scoring is straightforward and stats don't have to worry about is this "C" minor or major.

Does this make Ironman just another class? Well, yes. But Ironman can still have distinct benefits and disadvantages. A steel plate at 300 yards will be much more likely to fall to a .308 out of a M1A1 than a .223 out of a AR15 (steel measures power on its own......).

The only problem might be with the current scoring software. I assume it would have trouble with one stage being scored Major and one Minor (by the weapon scored on paper). Hmmmm, back to the drawing board I guess.

[George]

Thanks Matt, I wouldn’t want to think I was just going along with the herd or anything there ;-)

Bruce, we have been putting on long gun only IPSC matches recently at our club instead of 3gun and have been successfully using EZWinscore with PF segregation. We let the PF of the rifle determine the PF for the competitor PERIOD This allows HM and folks wanting to run heavy rifles a nice point bump on all of the paper stuff. It also gives them an extra bump on slug paper compared to the .223’rs

We use the R division in EZWinscore to handle HM division and require the rifle to be .30 caliber iron sights with major PF ammo and require a 12 gauge unported pump shotgun. We have not done anything to speak to comp and round limit issues for HM yet.

This allows us to use EZWinscore as is and get pretty well rounded results to boot.

We have also found out some other things about HM division too, such as MGM PRT targets open both doors simultaneously when hit anywhere with a .308 at under 60 yards ;-)

Here are some match results from a number of long gun matches we have run that way in the last year:

http://www.richmondhotshots.com/3gun.htm

--

Regards

[Flexmoney]

Flex, do i understand you correct that a minor caliber receive less penalty for mikes and no shoots, or did i misunderstand your point. trapr

Nope...misunderstanding.

I was saying that you get 5 points for an alpha whether you are shooting Major or Minor. So...if you are shooting all Alphas...might as well shoot Mior. Less recoil, more rounds in the gun.

Penalties stay the same.

[Flexmoney]

We let the PF of the rifle determine the PF for the competitor PERIOD This allows HM and folks wanting to run heavy rifles a nice point bump on all of the paper stuff. It also gives them an extra bump on slug paper compared to the .223’rs

That is very similar to my idea of ALL three guns needing to MAKE Major to be scored Major.

If one gun is Minor...they all are Minor. If one gun doesn't make Minor...you are shooting for no-score (Multi-gun match).

And, this goes with what we are used to with Pistol-only rules too. In a Pistol match...your power factor is equal to the wimpest rounds that you shoot in the match (I shot Minor at a pistol match in November. I had about 30 rounds of minor that allowed me enough rounds to shoot the 7 stage match.)

As mentioned, this score will likely be based on the choice of rifle caliber.

An added benefit would be that, if you were shooting .223 (minor), your pistol would be minor too. That would mean many would choose to shoot 9mm...which they might choose to buy locally (Wal-mart) when they get to the match. Less stuff to hump thru the airport or to ship.

On one level, if we say "everything must be major", that's fine. But what about IronMan?

The above gets the major rifle shooters a boost (assuming they shoot a Major pistol too).

[George]

That is very similar to my idea of ALL three guns needing to MAKE Major to be scored Major.

Kinda, sorta Flex. The truth is I derived the idea in a vacuum (my brain) staring at EZWinscore one match day while entering everyone as major for a local rifle only match. I had been toying with the idea of how to get HM up and running at our club recently and the idea of the rifle determining the PF dropped on my head (kinda like a bird squat does).

But it is a good idea and yes, there are flaws as there are in all ways of dealing with this so far. This way gets the major rifle back into competition without wussing out the PF floors any more than we have so far. In fact, lets restore them to 160 and 360, thank yew!

My specification calls for all HM ammo to make major to be in HM which is a separate division for scoring purposes so it doesn’t conflict with what you are talking about Flex.

Where there is a whip, there is a way.

--

Regards,

[MattBurkett]

Okay, so I love this.

.38 super 170 PF = major

.223 227 PF with 77's = Minor

Umm, how is that in anyway realistic. A C hit with a Super is worth more than a C hit with a rifle. Got to love the logic behind that one especially when it happens on the same stage.

[George]

I’m not gonna do anything logical and reasonable like saying that’s crazy, but you are right Matt, it’s definitely not realistic.

[bgary]

A C hit with a Super is worth more than a C hit with a rifle

That's a little out of context.

On a *pistol* target, the power factors are perfectly adequate to sort out scoring differences between a major pistol round and a minor pistol round.

On a *rifle* target, the power factors are perfectly adequate to sort out scoring differences between a major rifle round and a minor rifle round.

Since we don't [currently] shoot the same target with both pistol and rifle, nor do we [currently] allow the shooter the choice of whether they want to shoot a particular target with pistol or rifle... what difference does it make if the pistol power factors are out of sync with the rifle power factors?

Bruce

PS - running 77s at 2950fps? Yikes!

[Flexmoney]

... what difference does it make if the pistol power factors are out of sync with the rifle power factors?

Well...to get out of sync with both you and Matt...

I think...just like every round we fire in a pistol match needs to make the power factor (be it Major, Minor, or sub-minor)...every round fired in a multi-gun match needs to do so.