San Angelo Scoring

[Ronnie j]

I may not understand the problem completely, but why not have major pistol and minor rifle score the same and add one point for each scoring surface for major rifle/ shotgun.

[Wakal]

Minor shotgun?

Not a lot of folks shoot a Major rifle, although with the lowering of the power factor to its current tiny level I expect to see more 7.72 by 39's and 6.8 (if they run) in folk's hands. Mech-tech, one Master-class shooter aside, are a cute little joke for local play...as soon as someone shows up and tries to knock down a 8" plate at 300 yards with one, then that straw man will get some attention. Shred, come on over to Breckinridge (second Saturday of the month, next month) and show us how it is done! And then I have a few spare AR's for you to borrow

Fixing the glaring flaws in the scoring software would be a nice touch...I know this is a recycled discussion from a year ago, and exactly NOTHING has been done to fix it in the meantime. Heck, the rule that states competitors HAVE to wear ALL their shotgun equipment FOR THE ENTIRE MATCH is still in effect, despite even the gladhandlers and stuffed shirts agreeing that it was (and is) an oversight that never should have been published.

And...where is Tactical class in the kludgefest that is EZWinscore?

I'm sure Liota will ask all these questions, and many more, of our illustrious but non-posting president when she is working in the USPSA booth at the SHOT show this weekend

Alex

[shred]

Mech-tech, one Master-class shooter aside, are a cute little joke for local play...as soon as someone shows up and tries to knock down a 8" plate at 300 yards with one, then that straw man will get some attention. Shred, come on over to Breckinridge (second Saturday of the month, next month) and show us how it is done! And then I have a few spare AR's for you to borrow

I have an AR, works just fine. But the Mech-Tech is more fun, and I shoot local 3-gun purely for the fun of it. That I can beat all the AR's with it (including some Wakal guy just adds to the fun.

But, the central issue remains-- how can you score "shoot 'em with whatever" targets when two of the blasters may be at different PF's, yet a shoot a similar caliber?

[jkmccoy]

Sorry I've been missing this discussion. To be real honest I don't follow the forum like I used to (got tired of the S.O.S.). Loved talking to you all, just have trouble wading through the blah...blah...blah...

Every stage should be freestyle (IPSC/USPSA rules). Multi-gun stages should allow shooters to choose which weapon is used to engage each target (McCoy's opinion, supported by the reaction of shooters to SAGC stages). That means you must be able to score a stage no matter what weapon a shooter uses to engage each target. There is the potential for using weapons with different power factors.

Owing to the limitations of the current USPSA scoring program (WinEZScore) each stage must be designated as being shot with a particular weapon (either rifle, pistol, or shotgun). Every hit entered for that stage will receive the score appropriate for the designated weapon (e.g. if it is entered in WinEZScore as a "pistol" stage every hit will get the score appropriate to the pistol power factor).

If there are paper targets that could (note "could") be engaged with different weapons the match staff and the scorekeeper will need to make certain that the score is recorded and entered appropriately. What we have done is to print scoresheets that have separate columns for each weapon. The RO calls out not only the hits, but also the weapon (e.g. "pistol target, two alpha"). The hits are recorded in the column for pistol hits.

If the designated weapon is major power factor then any B, C, or D hits with a minor power factor weapon lose one point per hit (just put the number in the "additional penalties" box). If the designated weapon is minor power factor then any B, C, or D hits with a major power factor weapon receive an extra point. This means you may need to change C hits to A hits to increase the points (and you may need to put in one penalty point to make it come out even).

This sounds much more complicated than it really is. The vast majority of shooters are using a .223 minor rifle and a major pistol of larger caliber. The scorekeeper can treat all of them the same and only needs to pay special attention to the very few shooters who are using some other combination. In the VERY rare case where someone is using a major pistol and a minor rifle of the same caliber...Larry is absolutely correct. The shooter gets the benefit of the doubt. Not perfect, but correct. I have never seen it happen. I don't think it is really a problem.

The USPSA scoring system works. It appropriately awards power factor. It allows for very flexible stage design and increases the "freestyle factor" (e.g. do I engage these close targets with my rifle which may be faster than transitioning to my pistol but I'll get fewer points for non-A hits?).

Sorry, could say more but the wife says its bed time.

Cheers,

Kelly McCoy

p.s. I'll try to get back tomorrow.

[Larry White]

Kelly, I just want to say thanks for the effort it took to come up with the scoring that produced the most fun match I ever shot.-----Larry

[shred]

Cool, I thought it worked like that. Yeah there are a few fringe problems like possibly erasing holes or wierdos with Mech-Techs or maybe 45 Colt leverguns, but I think they're outweighed by the "shoot 'em as you want" aspect.

[bgary]

Hi, guys! Sorry to be late to this thread - I've been paying attention to a number of other threads that touch on scoring issues for USPSA multi-gun, but apparently missed this one (had never heard of "San Angelo scoring"...)

I hope you'll indulge me for a second, I'd like to clear up a couple of what I think are misconceptions...

I agree that the current USPSA multi-gun approach is a "kludge" (geek-speak for a really awkward and probably temporary solution to a problem). We basically found ourselves in a corner at the beginning of last year: The 3-gun Nationals had been announced, with multi-gun stages, and the rules that were in effect specifically say that you can't use more than one firearm in a match. So, we basically had about a month to decide: do we cancel (or radically change) the match? Do we make major changes to the rulebook? Or, do we try to find a way to "make it work", and fix it later. We thought that the last choice best served the interests of the members. Clearly, multi-gun stages are a direction we all want to go, so we put some "provisional" rules together.... specifically because a "provisional" approach allowed us to try something new without rewriting, reprinting and re-issuing the whole USPSA rulebook.

We always knew that "traditional" USPSA scoring was an issue in multi-gun. What we also knew, though, was that there was no way to re-write EZwinscore in the time we had, and our rules say that USPSA matches have to be scored with USPSA scoring software (and, between you and me, we didn't want to be scoring a National Championship match with a homegrown Excel spreadsheet). So, we basically had to find a way to pound multi-gun stages, major/minor scoring issues and a handful of other things into a stage format that we could score with EZWS, in a really rapid period of time. We did *not* have time to address whether or not to throw out power factor, or to make .223 "major", or to sort out how to make it so you could shoot any target with any gun and get a valid score, or to throw out comstock and adopt time-plus, or any of a number of other possibilities. That's how we ended up with the severely-constrained stages, rules and other stuff (eg, a-zone-only targets) we had at Reno.

I guess the USPSA "powers that be" don't find it sufficiently important to support things the membership wants/needs/demands.

We *know* that the "provisional" approach is not an optimal solution, and it certainly isn't the final one. It is the best we could do in the time we had, and I think it was actually a remarkable example of flexibility and responsiveness on the part of USPSA. What it says is "we heard that the membership wanted this, and we found a way to at least give it a try, rather than talking about it for the next 5 years and never quite doing anything". I don't know about you, but I think that deserves to be noticed.

Several of us begged the USPSA BOD not to pass the "provisional" 3-gun rules because they forbid correct, accurate and reasonable scoring and stage design for multi-gun stages. Several of us also suggested wording changes that would allow us to continue scoring stages as we have done for several years without altering the intent of the rules. We were thoroughly ignored.

Sorry about that. I don't know who you passed your input to, but I never saw it. And.... I *wrote* the provisional multi-gun rules. So, if we dropped a ball or missed a message somewhere, I apologize. I *am* currently working with Michael Voigt and some others to refine/rewrite/improve the USPSA multi-gun rules before *this* years 3-gun Nationals, and am *very* open to input. So.... fire away.

------

So, now, here we are today. The next version of the USPSA multi-gun rules are - literally - an open document. (I have the Word doc open on my screen.)

We have some challenges, such as:

-- should we keep it so major and minor score differently?

-- should .223 make major?

-- should we keep comstock scoring?

-- should we try TimePlus or some other scoring?

-- should we keep DVC (accuracy, power, speed)

-- should we allow grounding of "hot" guns?

-- should we allow any target to be shot with any gun?

-- what should Iron Man / Heavy Metal be?

-- how do we train ROs to know how to do that?

-- where do we get a scoring program to do that?

-- how do we write rules that work at club level and Nationals level?

-- etc.

NONE of those are deal-breakers. We just need to figure out what things make the most sense for the members and shooters of USPSA, AND the clubs that put on these matches, AND... well you get the idea.

Within those challenges, there is a very clear goal: **I** want (and I know Voigt and others want) to make USPSA multi-gun "friendly" to other flavors of multi-gun competition. We want to make it so a USPSA multi-gun match is attractive (fair, fun, challenging, not-stupid) to the people who shoot the Texas 3-gun, the Superstition Mountain 3-gun, the Rocky Mountain 3-gun, the Iron-Man, etc, etc.

We know that that goal will require that *we* change to become more like those other things. We're OK with that, and working towards that. We want to "close the gap", if you will, so that there is no longer any reason for shooters at other matches to say things like

I attempt to avoid USPSA 3-Gun

or

none of the multi-gun matches we run could ever be USPSA sanctioned ;-) We’re OK with that.

I want to FIX USPSA multi-gun so that it is a game you WANT to play.

Can we make USPSA multi-gun everything that everyone wants? not sure

Can we make USPSA multi-gun much better than it is now? ABSOLUTELY.

So, here's the call to action. Get your ideas to me. Or to Voigt. We are *actively* working on doing this.

As far as *this* topic goes, I am absolutely intrigued by the San Angelo scoring, and Kelly, if I can set up some time, I would love to call you and pick your brain. I am very familiar with USPSA scoring, and what we can/cannot do with EZWS. We already have tacit Board approval to spin a new USPSA scoring program tailored for multi-gun scoring. What we have to do now is decide what that scoring looks like. If I understand correctly, the main attributes of San Angelo scoring are that you record hits by firearm on the scorecard.... and then when the scorecard hits the stat-shack, some additional points are taken off the non-A rifle hits, if the shooters' rifle is not major.

That is a *very* clean approach, and I think it is very workable for USPSA multi-gun. We would have some sort of administrative things (like, a standard format for scorecards, training for ROs and stats people, etc), but we can work through all that. More to the point, it *preserves* the foundations of USPSA, which is that Accuracy, Power and Speed are all recognized. I love that.

So... bottom line is.... **I** want to make USPSA multigun a game that **you** want to shoot. So... please consider me your pipeline into the process of writing the next version of the USPSA multigun rules, and lets see what we can come up with that will work for you *and* USPSA. There's no reason for any "us vs. them" flavor of this conversation.... anyone who wants to trip a hammer on a multi-gun stage with a timer running is "one of us."

Thanks!!!!!

Bruce

[Wakal]

Thanks, Bruce! Sounds like you have a solid grasp of what we are having problems with, as well as a few other issues that came up last year. Why didn't anything change (or at least have some proposed changes posted) after last year's Brian Enos Forum USPSA 3-Gun Whine-O-Rama?

At least, fix the "carry all your shotgun gear all the time" rule, my favorite silly rule

Alex

[bgary]

Fixing the glaring flaws in the scoring software would be a nice touch...

Yup. I agree. EZWS has a "mandate" to be in sync with the rules, and when the rules are in flux, the software has a latency issue. And, it isn't really your problem, but it is *our* problem that the program was written by and is maintained by volunteers... which affects the rate at which we can manage changes. Fundamentally, though, the "glaring flaws" are in the context of multi-gun.... EZWS does a pretty good job of doing what it was *designed* to do, which is score a USPSA pistol match.

One of the things we have to solve - now - is what scoring for USPSA multigun should look like. Once we know that (read: *after* some fundamental decisions are made), *then* we can decide whether to modify EZWS to work for multi-gun, or to make a new version of EZWS specifically designed for multi-gun, or something else. We consciously chose *not* to make structural changes to EZWS until we knew what we wanted it to do...

I know this is a recycled discussion from a year ago, and exactly NOTHING has been done to fix it in the meantime. 

Well, no, not entirely true. Significant changes to EZWS were made to put it in sync with the Green rulebook (in fact, one of the conditions of releasing the rulebook was that we would not make the new rulebook effective until we had a version of EZWS that worked with it).

Oh, you mean changes to the multi-gun rules? We're working on those now. As you may have seen, one of the items on the agenda for last-weekend's board meeting was to review multi-gun in its 2004 form, and get the "sense of the board" on how much flexibility we have to improve it for 2005, including addressing some things like PF, DVC and scoring methods. I think we're going to be able to move forward pretty rapidly.

Heck, the rule that states competitors HAVE to wear ALL their shotgun equipment FOR THE ENTIRE MATCH is still in effect, despite even the gladhandlers and stuffed shirts agreeing that it was (and is) an oversight that never should have been published.

Hm.... not sure who the "gladhanders and stuffed shirts" are. I'm *hoping* you don't mean me, since this is the first I have heard of the issue, and I'm up to my eyeballs in rules stuff (2 years on the IPSC rules committee, the author of the provisional multigun rules, etc) To be honest it never occured to me that it is a problem, but... you're right, in the context of a multi-gun match, it is.

Note that the rule you're talking about is in the rulebook for shotgun-specific matches. What we're talking about is *multi-gun* matches, and making that rule go away for multi-gun matches is *easy*. All someone had to do is make me aware of it. Now you have. Thanks!

And...where is Tactical class in the kludgefest that is EZWinscore?

It is there, as a selectable rifle division, in the most current version of EZWS (the v2.25 update). Have you downloaded it since the Green Book went into effect?

I'm sure Liota will ask all these questions, and many more, of our illustrious but non-posting president when she is working in the USPSA booth at the SHOT show this weekend 

I can't speak for our "illustrious but non-posting president", and, sadly I will not be able to make it to SHOT. But I *am* the "non-illustrious but actively posting" Area Director, who is passionate about making multi-gun work, and actively involved in doing same. So... if you get tired of tilting at windmills and claiming victimhood for being ignored, try working *with* me. We might both enjoy it.

Bruce

[bgary]

We have some challenges, such as:

I forgot, there is at least one more challenge....

-- how many points should a target be worth?

Should a 10" plate at 350 yards "count the same" as a full-size popper at 10 yards?

Right now, an "A" counts 5 points. We have the option, under the existing rules, to double the value of steel on a stage, making for 10-point poppers and plates. But.... the way EZWS is set up, you can't "mix" targets... if you want 10-point steel on a stage, then ALL the steel on the stage has to be 10-point steel.

I think we gotta fix that. I think that the 350-yard shot should "get more points" to make it worth shooting (or, conversely, ignoring it should "cost enough" to make it worth shooting). The questions are

-- how do we decide how much that plate is "worth"

-- how do we structure it so course designers don't abuse it

(i.e., making a nearly impossible shot, worth 500 points or something)

-- and, how do we structure it so making or missing a key shot has an inordinately large impact on the overall match results?

Etc.

Open to ideas!

bruce

[bgary]

Why didn't anything change (or at least have some proposed changes posted) after last year's Brian Enos Forum USPSA 3-Gun Whine-O-Rama?

A couple of things:

1) We chose to treat 2004 as an "experiment". The plan was (and is) to let multigun run through 2004 with a relatively stable set of rules, then at the end of the year review what worked and what didn't, and re-cast the rules in [hopefully] better form early in the 2005 season. We're on track for that.

2) We *have* been paying attention throughout the Whine-O-Rama... in fact, I *started* a fair number of the threads, and have contributed to most and read them ALL. I have a bulging folder right here on my laptop, with input from dozens (if no hundreds) of people. I make no guarantees that we will be able to give everyone everything they want. But... make no mistake, the content from these forums gets brought directly into our conversations.

3) We (the subset of people who are working on this stuff) have to reach consensus on some pretty core issues, like... are we going to adopt Time Plus scoring, as some of the big 3-gun matches have done? If so, that implies some things, such as tilting the three pillars under our sport (DVC), and changing the USPSA game in some pretty non-trivial ways. I think we have fundamentally agreed that we *don't* want to throw out DVC, or power factor, or comstock scoring. We want to find ways to make them work for multigun.

4) And, as is true in any beauracracy (sad to say, we are one), we need to build consensus with the full board to actually make anything happen. Some of us are passionate about multi-gun. Others have never shot a multi-gun match, and may not even be long-gun shooters at all, so may not understand the issues and options. We need to "socialize" our plan with them to have any hope of getting it approved and implemented. Sad to have to admit that, but it is reality.

Having said all that.... it is my hope that we will be able to "socialize" some things with shooters, as well. You may recall last year that I posted an early draft of the multi-gun rules here on the benos forums, started a number of threads, and got some good input which found its way into later revisions. I also followed up for more detailed review of more refined drafts with a number of individuals... I vetted the provisional rules with Troy McManus (mactiger) and a number of other RMs, for example, to make sure they were enforceable and consistent with RO training. I vetted the same draft with a number of "name" 3-gun shooters, to make sure there were no huge competitive issues. Etc.

I plan to do the same thing with the next draft.

Now all we gotta do is decide what goes *in* that draft...

Bruce

[ap3]

I think this is a great thing the BOD has done to keep moving us forward. The adaptability of our organization is impressive. I would like to add the following thought to my earlier quote. My whole approach is the K.I.S.S. philosophy, as I think it require the least amount of retraining of RO's and EZwin score. It also would be the simplist approach for clubs.

I have run, scored and shot multi-gun matches at my club in Kentucky for sometime (ORPCI).From the perspective of having been apart of all aspects of multi-gun matches I base the following feedback on the provisional rules:

Perhaps we should consider creating 4 divisions in 3gun/mulit-gun as opposed to making 3 gun adapt to pistol divisions. The four divisions would be OPEN, LIMITED, TACTICAL, HEAVY METAL. In the Open,Limited and Tactical division current minimum caliber requirement would prevail, but the rifle would determine the shooters power factor with of course pistol being required to make 125 power factor.The other idea here is that if a shooter chose to use a major caliber rifle he would receive the added benefit of better pistol points with the requirement that both firearms had to meet major power factor. Heavy metal would be minimum of 308 and 45 with existing major power major rules applied and shotgun being the same as tactical/limited. You would immediatly resolve the problem of rifle and pistol on the same stage when it comes to scoring. By making pistol minor in Open,Limited and Tactical you require more of a focus on accuracy in pistol at 3gun matches adding to the uniqueness of the sport. I am of the opinion that so many 3gunners shoot different pistol divisions that his would not be an issue relative to equipment or interest. Afterall, the real focus on 3gun is not the pistol part of the matches for the shooters. You could go so far as to require Tactical divsion to shoot production style pistols only.

With this approach to the divisions you would now be able to develop easily scorable multi-gun classifiers for shooters. Classification would be based on a shooters ability with multi-gun, which would alleviate the problem of a classification system whereby a shooter might be Master in Pistol and D in rifle. In essence one classification based on Open,Limited, Tactical or Heavy Metal.

Our focus has been on getting 3gun to fit within our pistol rules, but maybe we need to look at 3gun as if it was a completely different sport. Said another way, maybe we should look at it as if it was its own association within USPSA.

In regard to long distance targets having greater value I would agree. Keep comstock scoring, DVC, and majoe and minor and all that is USPSA just approach 3gun without pistol glasses on.

Bruce, thank you for your passion and tireless efforts. It is people like you that keep USPSA the best association around. I know whatever the BOD decides it wil be a well thought out approach.

Albert

A-41112

[benny hill]

Can you say SAN ANGELO scoreing?. USPSA can adopt this right away for scoreing. IT WORKS with the guns & power factor we have now. Down load it, dist. it to all clubs. Done . You have to try it to see how simple it is.

[bgary]

Where can I download it from?

Bruce (dangling participles be damned ;-)

[bgary]

Perhaps we should consider creating 4 divisions in 3gun/mulit-gun as opposed to making 3 gun adapt to pistol divisions. The four divisions would be OPEN, LIMITED, TACTICAL, HEAVY METAL.

I think we're on that track. We already have Open, Lim and Tactical.

What we *dont* have, right now, is clear agreement on what "Heavy Metal" should be. In some versions of the game, Heavy Metal means iron sights on the rifle, in others optics are allowed. In some versions of the game, Heavy Metal means 12ga pump, in others 12ga autos are allowed. And in some versions of the game, Heavy Metal means .45 single stacks, in other versions any .45 is allowed. So, we want to do a Heavy Metal (either as a separate division, or as a category, not sure yet), but we have some work to do to figure out what Heavy Metal is going to be for *us*... and, per my other post, we *want* to do it in a way that brings us closer to the other games, but the way things are right now, those other games are each different, so... stepping closer to one might take us farther away from another.

Our focus has been on getting 3gun to fit within our pistol rules, but maybe we need to look at 3gun as if it was a completely different sport. Said another way, maybe we should look at it as if it was its own association within USPSA.

BRUCE'S PERSONAL OPINION (read: this is NOT an official USPSA position). My opinion is exactly in sync with that. I think that USPSA should become an "umbrella org" for a whole variety of "practical" shooting sports. One of those sports would be IPSC-style pistol competitions. Another one of those might be single-stack-society types of competitions. Another one of those might be multi-gun types of competitions. We could leverage the *safety* rules across all of them, but allow each of them to have different equipment rules, different scoring rules, different stage design guidelines, whatever. Not only would that be a more manageable way to facilitate change, it would also allow us to *eliminate*, rather than reinforce, the barriers of perception between USPSA and (IMGA or IDPA or 1911society or ICORE or ....) We are - fundamentally - all one big family. Wouldn't it be cool if we stopped squabbling about our differences, and started celebrating our common ground?

Bruce, thank you

It's not just me. I happen to post here more often than most, but I know that *everyone* on the board wants to make USPSA a sport that shooters want to play, and make USPSA an org that people want to be a part of.

Bruce

[Larry White]

Bruce, I doubt its quite that easy. Contact Kelly McCoy via this forum. Those folks pretty much have this 3 gun stuff working, and not just scoreing. I don't remember once having to unload a gun on the clock that whole match.----Larry

[bgary]

Contact Kelly McCoy via this forum

Have pinged him with a PM, hoping to hear from him.

I don't remember once having to unload a gun on the clock that whole match

Yup. One of the highest priorities we have in this thing is to get rid of that from the USPSA multigun rules. Forget the competitive issue, the single strongest bit of feedback I got from the ROs at Reno was, "the way some people unloaded on the clock was more unsafe than anything else we might have asked them to do". I get it.

Understand, the "leave the gun empty" bit was a last-minuted compromise. We wanted to provide bunkers, and to have the rules say that if the gun is left in a bunker which holds it in a safe direction, and no one passes in front of the muzzle, then the gun could be left "hot" (safety on, but would not have to be empty).

We ran into two problems with that. One, if we had written that into the rules, then we would have been forcing an "unfunded mandate" on USPSA clubs, because effectively we would have been saying "you can't run a multigun match unless you spend the money to build bunkers". And two, that beauracracy thing reared its ugly head - we could not reach agreement on wording, and so had to take a compromise position. Notably, the compromise position was chosen because it was the MOST CONSERVATIVE approach - we figured it would be easier to give *more* options down the road, than it would be to try to tighten up or remove options down the road.

We now have the time to fix that whole thing. I think we will end up with a "tiered" approach, where if you have bunkers, you have lots of options. If you don't build bunkers, there are some constraints. And if you don't build bunkers and don't want to follow the constraints, then the gun has to be empty. That has *lots* of flexibility for match directors, course designers, clubs and everybody else, but keeps safety at the top of the list.

Bruce

PS - I plan to visit at least the RM3G and the SMM3G this year, and possibly the iron man - I probably will not be able to shoot them, but I plan to get myself on the ground, to see how they work, to talk to the people that make them work, to hear what the shooters at those matches (who I may not have met at a USPSA match) like and don't like about those matches, and... maybe even start building the bridge between "us" and "them"

[hopalong]

Bruce,

I don't think I saw this so I will throw it too you to chew on....

for scoring Major vs Minor and then allowing shooter choice on Paper targets...

When the shooter declares Major and/or Minor Pf then both rifle and Pistol must fith that category...

That will let them shoot either on paper and not lose points if having major pistol and Minor rifle.

Real simple, all the shooters have to do is shoot all Alpha hits

And you already have my suggestion on Tactical Rifle (somewhere)

AND Thanks for being "upfront" on the 3-gun stuff in USPSA we need more folks like you that are "OPEN MINDED"

Hopalong

[bgary]

When the shooter declares Major and/or Minor Pf then both rifle and Pistol must fith that category...

Yeah, we've talked about that. In fact one of the earliest proposals was "all your guns have to make major. If any of your guns are minor, then *all* your guns count minor, for the whole match."

That makes it easy to score

But, there were two problems with it:

-- if we went that way, we effectively "lose" power-factor. We think that shooters would largely stick with ARs, would all shoot 9mm puff loads since they would be scored minor anyway, and ... well, all 12ga is major. So. We'd end up with everybody but Heavy Metal being "minor".

-- and... pretty much everyone we talked to, hated the idea.

I think, based on what I have read, that the San Angelo scoring would solve the problem without creating any artificial "standards" for equipment. I'm hoping to learn more about it.

Bruce

[jkmccoy]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Gentlemen (and Gentle Ladies),

Let us not get too far afield. I firmly believe in and support the USPSA rules AND the scoring system. I do NOT want to abandon DVC in favor of a "time-plus" scoring system just because it is easier. We have system that (in principle at least) appropriately awards qualities that our sport should test (power, speed, and accuracy). Let us not leave these principles behind in our quest to achieve a workable scoring system. Instead let us work out what will be necessary to score multi-gun stages according to these prinicples.

Bruce, Glad you could join us. I'm almost embarrassed by the "San Angelo Scoring" title for the thread. We haven't done anything except to figure out how to appropriately score multi-gun stages using the currently available software and rules (except the provisional rules). Our system is just as much a Kluge-fest as the current 3-gun rules (just a bit more elegant in application). All we have done at San Angelo is try to hold a really fun and challenging 3-gun match according to USPSA rules. I hope the comments from the shooters will show that we have been fairly successful in that endeavor.

I understand that updates to EZWinScore lag behind rule changes that require changes to the scoring program. I'm perfectly willing to work around the EZWinScore problems (for a while). I understand that the "provisional" 3-gun rules were an emergency solution to allow a proper 3-Gun Nationals. I actually applaud the BOD for moving to enact the provisional rules and I agree that it is a tremendous testament to the flexibility of this sport.

The problem (and my main complaint) is in the wording of the adopted provisional rules. Those provisional rules, in trying to avoid the scoring problems because we don't have a proper scoring program, prohibited the approach we have used in San Angelo to kluge around the defects in the scoring program. I understand that not everyone is willing to use my work-arounds to score multi-gun stages. We needed rules that would allow those clubs to run multi-gun stages. But we didn't need rules that restricted stage design just because not everyone could figure out how to score those stages correctly. Several of us suggested wording changes that would have allowed "San Angelo Scoring" while still providing a method of running multi-gun stages at clubs where the scorekeeper couldn't/wouldn't use similar work arounds. Those comments were universally ignored.

As regards grounding a "hot" weapon...Absolutely YES. If it can be done safely then it must be allowed. We (SAGC) suggested several possible solutions. We employed several of those solutions in the past two Texas State 3-Gun matches. I absolutely guarantee that no-one's safety was in any way compromised by grounding a "hot" weapon at those matches. The building of bunkers needs to be optional, but it needn't be a major financial burden on clubs. It is possible to ground a hot weapon and allow the shooter to move laterally (and not move downrange of the weapon) without causing a safety issue. We used the cardboard tubes made to be forms for pouring concrete pillars to build completely safe bunkers for less than $5 per bunker.

Finally (Yes, really finally. I know I'm a bit long-winded at times), the main complaint from SAGC and the shooters that enjoyed our matches is that we had actually solved many of the problems that the BOD was trying to address with the provisional rules but we were ignored when it came time to provide input on those rules. When the provisional rules came out they forbade many of our solutions. Although the BOD was absolutely correct that provisional rules were necessary, the rules that were approved were wrong (on many levels). Many of the problems with those rules could have been corrected with minor wording changes (many of which were suggested by SAGC members).

And Bruce...I think you were involved in some of the threads discussing the provisional rules on this forum. I'll spend some time in the archives and if I'm correct you are in for serious castication.

Kurt...We'll be looking for you. Hopefully there will be someone to give you some competition. The match is the third weekend of May. The entry form is on the SAGC website (www.sanangelogunclub.org).

Cheers,

Kelly McCoy

[kimel]

I think Bruce alluded to one of the biggest problems with the provisional rules earlier...not all of the BoD are 3-Gun shooters.

IMHO, every BoD member needs to go to a large 3-Gun match and if they don't shoot it, they need to work it. USPSA 3-Gun Nats this year would be an excellent opportunity.

If they aren't willing to do that then their constituents need to exercise their vote come the next election...but that is another thread for another forum.

From what I have read of the San Angelo scoring it sounds reasonable and workable to me. Why not give that a provisional try for 2005 and see how it goes?

One of my biggest concerns with 3-Gun is actually from one of the areas that Bruce mentions as needing work...ROs.

I haven't seen the new Level 1 seminar but I did just complete the new Level 2 Correspondence course and there is nothing substantial in there about 3-gun.

IMHO a separate set of 3-Gun courses needs to be developed which would allow people to earn their "3-Gun Endorsement" on their current RO/CRO/TC/RM credentials. The emphasis for each level of endorsement would remain the same as for that level of NROI certification. Level 1 focuses on safety, running the shooter, scoring, etc. The Level 2 focuses on course design and running a stage, etc. And so on. This, IMHO is necessary due to the amount of grumbling that was heard last year after the 3-Gun Nats in Reno about ROs that hadn't any clue about 3-Gun. There needs to be instruction on the finer points of dealing with long guns from range commands to the special rules for them (slung rifles/shotguns, equipment changes like bi-pods going off and on during the match, and so on).

By necessity this would need to be a correspondence course; at least for everything Level 2 and higher. There aren't enough RMIs to handle this load (there are barely enough to handle the load of Level 1 courses as it is) and those guys are already giving a TON of their time.

And I really don't see how a Level 1 course can be properly expanded to handle 3-gun in the standard Saturday/Sunday seminar. There are ways this can be handled but I won't waste bandwidth here on that.

Carry on Bruce...I don't envy you the task that lays before you but know that there are lots of us out here willing to help.

[3GunF1Guy]

As a member of USPSA and the president of a Multi-Gun club (Utah Multi-Gun Association) we choose to use the IMGA rules for multi-gun rather than USPSA rules. I think that the USPSA rule are the BEST for a pistol match. It gives you everything need for a pistol, speed, accuracy, power (DVC). I also like the Major-Minor it works in the pistol format. When we decided to do 3-gun it just seemed like the USPSA rule didn’t fit quite right, but IMGA rules did. After looking at all of the discussions on scoring issues it seems like the major stumbling block is the major-minor thing with rifles. All of the other differences are minor i.e. hot guns, carrying shotgun ammo, points assigned to targets and even the time scoring vs hit factor scoring can be worked out. imho (I like hit factor scoring better but it is MUCH slower to score and tape a stage when you have a lot of time being used in other places in a 3-gun match). There are a lot of vocal people who want the major-minor scoring to stay. I think the we (uspsa) need to look at what DVC is and where it came from. It is better to shoot a 45acp than a 9mm in a defensive situation, so then the rules were formulated to give us a power factor of 165 (remember it has changed, so that means it is a moving target, so to speek.) so ,DVC was a pistol concept right? Do we need it in rifle? If we do then lets just make the power factor the same as pistol, 165, then a 223 will make major, or eliminate the power factor altogether for rifle. But then all of the people who shoot a 308 will say “that’s not fair, the 223 is faster” and the point will also be made that a 308 is more effective in a defensive situation. We need to go back the pistol example, a 44mag is more effective than a 40s&w but I don’t see anyone shooting a 44mag in competition. Just eliminate the power factor in rifle and be done with it. Shooters will find a way to make whatever is the most effective in competition work. It may not be a 308 just like a 44mag is not competitive, or something else will be, like 38super, who carry’s a 38super with 30rd mags into a defensive situation? No one. But it is competitive in open. Who knows some xyz rifle may be the gun to have, just like 38super.

Scott Peterson

[ap3]

I agree with Scott the rifle power factor issue is the real stumbling block. All the other issues can be worked with fairly easily. The San Angelo scoring system does seem to have a lot of merit if we can get software that supports it. I still believe you can address the rifle power factor issue by division as we do 38 super in Open and 40 in Limited,and incorporating Scott's idea for 223 power factor that make them major in those division.

Yea Bruce, this ain't an easy one.

[kurtm]

Scott:

I agree, lets look at where it came from! Major floor used to be 180. Pretty much a .45 was the way to SAFELY make that value, it also seemed to work REALLY well in a fight. Alass as time changed we "down graded" major so other marginal calibers could SAFELY make major. If we keep going, major flooor will be around what a hot CO2 BB gun will produce. Do away with rifle major? Current events and reports of the .223 not working very well in the real world have spurred an interest in a more powerful cartridge for the military. It seem that at a power factor of 165 these little carbines just dont do the job intended. As an aside .308 or 7.62X51 still seems to really work and work well, power factor of 360 plus. Doing away with a major floor seems like a very poor idea in light of these developments. For 30 years I have been told the little carbine is everything, but I have yet to meet anyone that brags up thier 165 power factor elk rifle. Now don't get me wrong I love the little carbine for match shooting. It is accurate, fast and easy to shoot, so is a 10-22, but it is NO KIND of major rifle. I say keep the major floor!! and add a few points for shooting one. KURTM

[Larry White]

Power has been rewarded from the very start of the sport. Raising,lowering or doing away with the PF would be a poor way to fix this. Just find a way to score a multi gun multi PF stage. Kelly McCoy has shown us a way. Use his way or come up with a better way, but fix the scoring. Then fix the rest of this stuff and lets shoot.-----Larry