Is ICORE dead in the Mid-Atlantic?

[RevoWood123]

We all agree that we want ICORE to grow, we all agree that more needs to be done, I think everybody has made valid points as to what our shortfalls are. I think that the problem cannot be directly linked to one thing or another, but parts that make up one key issue; growing our sport.

However, I don't believe that ICORE is any more accuracy dependent than any other. True classifiers do require better accuracy for shooter to class higher (but so does IDPA, USPSA, etc), but on field courses, (especially lots of steel) doesn't require an A-zone/X hit, it simply has to be hit or has to fall. Some MDs may have more paper set ups than steel arrays, and those would require X/A hits if they make them x-count stages with bonuses, and they may set up paper at longer distances than others, but that is at the discretion of a MD, not the sport. Other than classifiers, there is no mandatory X/A requirement for stages or distance to which targets have to be set. The imagination of the MD is the only limitation to make a match more challenging and more fun to shoot. We have used barricades, start, polish plate racks, dueling trees, poppers, speed plates, props, paper, port holes, basically anything that can be shot at/around/through, we have pretty much used. Field courses can be whatever a MD wants to do. If you watch ICORE videos, its not just paper targets and classifiers (let's be honest, some classifiers are fun, but most aren't and we go through them eagerly waiting the field courses) and neither is IDPA or USPSA.

The cost to get into it does not cost any more than any other IMO (mags, belt, holster, holders vs. moonclips/speedloaders, belt, holster, holders). Maybe the gun itself may cost more vs. a polymer pistol, but not much more than a CZ or base 1911. Again, if the cost is an issue for a shooter, some of diehard revo guys can help newer shooters out, lend a gun, clips/loaders, holster, holders if you have them to spare. Like I said before, when I first started, lots of guys offered to lend me stuff for a match to get me started, and I stuck around because they did and because I enjoyed it.

As far as getting non-ICORE shooters to come out, aside from ICORE org advertising to promote, it falls to local competitors and MDs to reach out. We have to be doing our part at the local level to drive interest in it. Put up flyers at local gun shops if they'll let you, talk to guys at gun shows (see if they will waive your entry fee), go to the other matches and find the revo shooters and talk to them about ICORE, find guys on forums who are local and invite them to come out (waive their match fee for first time maybe). I think that the MDs (myself included) should also try networking with other MDs in the same state/ territory/ region to encourage shooters to participate in matches beside the ones at just their local clubs. There are 3 clubs (one being the one I am a member of) within an hour of each other. If all 3 of us are hosting matches, we should be seeing a lot of the same shooters at those matches and we hopefully should be seeing newer shooters at all 3 if were are trying to support the sport as a whole.

Other revolver sports are falling out, this is true, but ICORE isn't quite the same animal, at least not in my experience. It's not just old standards and slow static shooting, it can be faster pace and I have shot stages that rival the challenge and fun of any USPSA course. I appreciate what everybody has been offering to the conversation and I hope that we can bring about a larger effort to promote the sport.

[Forrest Halley]

Six shot neutral limits stages pretty well. You've got the 1-6 window, the 9-12 window and the 17-18 shot window. Beyond that the reloads become a factor...duh for some of us...not so much for others.

[Forrest Halley]

There is some way to design the stages where the reloads for the six are eaten up in travel or break down the stage into 6,9 and 17 shot arrays. To have the shooters taking shots moving into and out of the arrays given the scoring of ICORE increases the difficulty a little, but also brings back the magic of the talented shooter putting on a clinic of smooth is fast. The newer shooters will see this and emulate it raising the skill level of all involved.

I feel like the biggest attractant ICORE has is good shooters talking the game to the new shooters as everyone cheers their squadmates on through the highs and lows. If we can show that the revolver can be an awesome shooting tool and create an atmosphere of learning and sharp competition then the following should improve. Without the collective support in the squads the new folks won't survive the first few falters. No need for big egos in revo.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Forrest Halley

[bdpaz]

I think trying to make stages truly six shot neutral is futile. Unless you make every stage Shots Limited (Virginia count) and require mandatory reloads it can't be done. An achievable goal is for every stage to be fun to shoot with both 6 and 8 shot guns and accept the fact that people shooting 8 shot guns will have fewer reloads and/or more make up shots available.

At last Sunday's Phoenix Rod & Gun Club ICORE match I had a Classifier, a steel stage (two strings) with 5 plates requiring 2 hits each where you could see them all at a distance or move closer and then move sideways to see them sequentially, a field course with lateral moment and 12 paper targets grouped as 2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2 followed by two poppers, and another field course of 12 paper with walls and ports arranged so that the targets could be engaged in groups of 3-3-3-3 or 4-2-2-4. It worked for both capacities and high overall went to a Classic shooter. Granted, we were missing some of the top Open and Limited shooters and Jason might have been able to beat his own Classic time if he'd shot Limited, but by not throwing up arbitrary roadblocks to handicap the 8 shot guns it worked for everyone.

Here is a link to the results: http://www.prgcpractical.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=79&id=1181&Itemid=497 It loads slowly so be patient.

Edited July 15, 2015 by bdpaz

[Forrest Halley]

I don't think making the stages six shot neutral is futile and it can be done by controlling the array numbers and placing barricades or barriers to establish clear engagement positions. A clever stage designer...can make this happen. You do have to be a bit of a gamer to see the angles and control them as you intend the stage to be shot without having to write it down in stone like idpa. 1-6, 9-12, 17-18 from any position and we are all equal 6 vs. 8. In fact if you want to make some visual barriers you can get higher round counts on the stages and offset the 8 shot by allowing the 6 shot a chance to reload on the way to the next array.

For example: Shoot 6 on paper from point A and move to point B where another 12 shots are required and then on to point C where 9 shots are required. No I can't help you with the fact that the 8 shot carries more makeups, but I can set it up to keep the reloading even. He leaves with two from the first position if clean and four from the second, but it is no advantage as he must reload for the five or the one if he reloads on the way in. Thinking like this you can keep them even all day and enjoy high round counts. Just be careful not to make any targets available from more than one shooting position or if you must, make it so the extra foot work negates the advantage and always keep the angles such that visiting each position is necessary.

[bdpaz]

I don't think making the stages six shot neutral is futile and it can be done by controlling the array numbers and placing barricades or barriers to establish clear engagement positions. A clever stage designer...can make this happen. You do have to be a bit of a gamer to see the angles and control them as you intend the stage to be shot without having to write it down in stone like idpa. 1-6, 9-12, 17-18 from any position and we are all equal 6 vs. 8. In fact if you want to make some visual barriers you can get higher round counts on the stages and offset the 8 shot by allowing the 6 shot a chance to reload on the way to the next array.

For example: Shoot 6 on paper from point A and move to point B where another 12 shots are required and then on to point C where 9 shots are required. No I can't help you with the fact that the 8 shot carries more makeups, but I can set it up to keep the reloading even. He leaves with two from the first position if clean and four from the second, but it is no advantage as he must reload for the five or the one if he reloads on the way in. Thinking like this you can keep them even all day and enjoy high round counts. Just be careful not to make any targets available from more than one shooting position or if you must, make it so the extra foot work negates the advantage and always keep the angles such that visiting each position is necessary.

If you think that having additional shots available, particularly with steel, does not favor the 8 shot gun then we're at the agree to disagree point. I don't feel that designing a stage so that the number of reloads is equal IF you shoot the minimum number of shots equates to 6 shot neutral.

[Forrest Halley]

No I can't help you with the fact that the 8 shot carries more makeups, but I can set it up to keep the reloading even.

If you think that having additional shots available, particularly with steel, does not favor the 8 shot gun then we're at the agree to disagree point. I don't feel that designing a stage so that the number of reloads is equal IF you shoot the minimum number of shots equates to 6 shot neutral.

We aren't at that point. I am well aware of the advantage of having the extra rounds on steel where you either eat an extra reload or take a miss. So how many makeups do you have to have to negate the advantage? A four shot array with two steel or a nine shot array with three paper and three steel? Maybe two paper and five steel? Where does it wash even for you? Above ten rounds required you never get two spares again in the same reload. So we're giving up 2-4 seconds to make up the miss to come out 2 seconds ahead of or even with taking the miss.

So how does 1-5, 9-11, 17 sound then? Neutral?

I believe that revolver shooters had to man up in the six shot days facing off eight shot arrays and marksmanship was an assumed baseline above C class. So while I understand the value of the extra shots, I still try like the devil to go one for one. I feel like misses are self perpetuating and can eat through any number of makeup shots.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Forrest Halley

[bdpaz]

No I can't help you with the fact that the 8 shot carries more makeups, but I can set it up to keep the reloading even.

If you think that having additional shots available, particularly with steel, does not favor the 8 shot gun then we're at the agree to disagree point. I don't feel that designing a stage so that the number of reloads is equal IF you shoot the minimum number of shots equates to 6 shot neutral.

We aren't at that point. I am well aware of the advantage of having the extra rounds on steel where you either eat an extra reload or take a miss. So how many makeups do you have to have to negate the advantage? A four shot array with two steel or a nine shot array with three paper and three steel? Maybe two paper and five steel? Where does it wash even for you? Above ten rounds required you never get two spares again in the same reload. So we're giving up 2-4 seconds to make up the miss to come out 2 seconds ahead of or even with taking the miss.

So how does 1-5, 9-11, 17 sound then? Neutral?

I believe that revolver shooters had to man up in the six shot days facing off eight shot arrays and marksmanship was an assumed baseline above C class. So while I understand the value of the extra shots, I still try like the devil to go one for one. I feel like misses are self perpetuating and can eat through any number of makeup shots.

It sounds like we agree on what makes a stage good for both 6 and 8 shot guns but, in my opinion, you and others aren't following the "letter of the law" of 6 shot neutral and those who are set up painful, stilted, suck-all-the-joy-out-of-life stages. So my real problem is with the "six shot neutral" requirement itself. I think it should be changed or expanded to eliminate the "3 paper for 3 hits each from box A, mandatory reload, then 3 paper for 3 hits each from box B, mandatory reload, then 3 paper for 3 hits each from box C" stages.

[Forrest Halley]

Okay I'm trying to go with something that is a neutral situation for both cylinder capacity. The guy from ICORE says that six shot neutral ISN'T specifically requiring no more than six shots prior to reloading, so I feel like I'm on the right track here.

The 6 shot neutral requirement is often confused with "I can't require more than 6 shots per array" 9 shots is 6 shot neutral.

I'm asking the shooter to engage targets in such a manner to keep the reloads even and ensuring that each shooter has spare rounds onboard to make up misses. What have I missed? I think this is a great discussion about such a clearly misunderstood part of ICORE stage planning.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Forrest Halley

[bdpaz]

Okay I'm trying to go with something that is a neutral situation for both cylinder capacity. The guy from ICORE says that six shot neutral ISN'T specifically requiring no more than six shots prior to reloading, so I feel like I'm on the right track here. I'm asking the shooter to engage targets in such a manner to keep the reloads even and ensuring that each shooter has spare rounds onboard to make up misses. What have I missed? I think this is a great discussion about such a clearly misunderstood part of ICORE stage planning.

That, correctly or not, some (many?) people interpret 6 shot neutral to mean 8 shot must have no advantage. And even if not taking it literally, as you pointed out it is subjective as to how many available make up shots are needed to make it "neutral".

I have decided to interpret the 6 shot neutral stage requirement as meaning that it is equally fun to shoot with a 6 shot or an 8 shot gun. Where the number of reloads probably won't be equal but it flows similarly with both capacities. So everybody reloads on the move and/or between position or everybody has standing reloads. In the last year of ICORE matches at PRGC first with Steve Horsman and now with me running the matches that approach has worked well, with Classic shooters finishing up near Limited and Open shooters of similar ability.

This approach may (or may not!) be close to the intent of the 6 shot neutral requirement but until ICORE defines it differently I'm sticking to it as being just as valid as meaning 8 shot has no advantage.

[Forrest Halley]

After a careful reading of the rulebook...six shot neutrality is mentioned but not defined. Let slip the wild goose and commence the pursuit! I love "interpretations" and "clarifications"...fond memories!

Now all we need is a concrete definition of six shot neutral...so we can properly fetter them evil eight shots!*rolls eyes*

[RevoWood123]

I don't think making the stages six shot neutral is futile and it can be done by controlling the array numbers and placing barricades or barriers to establish clear engagement positions. A clever stage designer...can make this happen.

I have decided to interpret the 6 shot neutral stage requirement as meaning that it is equally fun to shoot with a 6 shot or an 8 shot gun. Where the number of reloads probably won't be equal but it flows similarly with both capacities. So everybody reloads on the move and/or between position or everybody has standing reloads.

I like this discussion because we are hitting a very confusing topic for some people who have never shot ICORE or have never shot a match with a good stage designer. Six shot neutral as far as what I understand, is that the 8-shot gun does not have a clear competitive advantage over a 6-shot gun, excluding the extra shots that can be used for easier make-up shots.

That being my understanding of six shot neutral, the stage designer should be able to set up a stage that makes it six shot neutral fairly easily (force reloads, structured engagements, etc). The difference however, is that a really good stage designer won't have to use forced reloads and structured engagements. They would design the stage in a way that the arrays could only be shot from specific locations and the movement from one array to another would make a shooter want to reload on the move to the next array instead of taking a standing reload.

(Example:) You could have one array that is 4 shots, the next being 5, the next being 6. The 8-shot guy would not have to reload but twice (assuming no misses), but he would have to take a standing reload. The real competitor is going to keep the extra rounds to make up misses, and reload 3 times on the move because it makes more sense than eating time on a standing reload. Shots unlimited or limited wouldn't matter.

I think both of you have the right idea, but are looking at it two different ways, if I am understanding you both correctly. Six shot neutral as both of you have described, you want it flow without being caught up in possible procedurals while at the same time not giving an advantage to a guy with 8 rounds in his gun. I agree that stages suck when they aren't fun to shoot (forced reloads, shots limited, fixed boxes; which is the way most classifiers are set up). But the field courses are free reign from a stage designers mind, he just has to abide by "six shot neutral" which is not clearly defined, but it may not need to be.

[bdpaz]

Six shot neutral as far as what I understand, is that the 8-shot gun does not have a clear competitive advantage over a 6-shot gun, excluding the extra shots that can be used for easier make-up shots.

An interesting and reasonable explanation but one I'm not sure that any random shooter would come up with when asked to define "6 shot neutral".

(Example:) You could have one array that is 4 shots, the next being 5, the next being 6. The 8-shot guy would not have to reload but twice (assuming no misses), but he would have to take a standing reload. The real competitor is going to keep the extra rounds to make up misses, and reload 3 times on the move because it makes more sense than eating time on a standing reload. Shots unlimited or limited wouldn't matter.

I think that at your 6 shot array the 8 shot gun clearly has an advantage, more so if any of these shots are on steel. My feeling that it is more neutralish to, for example, have a 24 round stage where the 6 shot gun will always have an additional reload but if a shooter with either capacity needs a make up it throws off his or her plan and requires an additional reload.

I don't think my interpretation is any more valid than yours, so perhaps instead of more clearly defining 6 shot neutral we just need to add that it is NOT removing any and all advantages of an 8 shot gun?

[RevoWood123]

I would agree that is does not take all advantages away from the 8-shot gun, but in terms of neutrality, *assuming nobody misses*, then the stage design should be so that it would not be advantageous to carry the remaining rounds of an 8-shot to the next target array. Notice how I emphasized no misses. Your top shooters are probably not going to have many of those and could shoot the course of fire the exact same way with a 6 as they would an 8 and probably come out with the same overall time. But for most club level shooters or beginners, the advantage of the 8-shot gun is only for make up shots, not to gain the competitive edge over a 6-shot gun. This is where my interpretation of the 6-shot neutrality rule comes from. The competitive edge goes to those who can shoot without missing and those who can run the stage faster vs. gaining an edge just because of equipment.

I know when I first started shooting ICORE I ran a friends 627 before I bought a 686. True, the 8 round for make-ups helped, especially when I was new. But my problems weren't so much the misses as I didn't yet possess the skills to know how to run the stages best; where to reload to save time, not taking standing reloads, order in which to shoot different arrays. Some of the longer field courses (30+rd minimum), you could have approached a few different ways, and I just didn't know the best way to do so. But since I have been shooting I have developed those skills better and now the only advantage is when I still occasionally have a mike and either roll on or take a standing reload.

[Forrest Halley]

Revowood:

The standing reload is always going to force a reload on the move if the shooter is a savvy one. The definition that we are trying to find here is just how many spare rounds does the six shooter need to have to keep things neutral. The makeups on steel do allow a more aggressive approach. Does this factor into neutrality? I think the reloads become the biggest concern with neutrality in that there is an automatic time advantage if the round count falls 7-8(6-8 on steel), 13-16(12-16), or 18+ if the COF is very fluid. Taking a 32 round field course, that's 5x3secs for the average man on a good day vs 3x3secs with the eight shot on reloading alone. Six seconds is nice. Therefore having extra rounds on board makes for a more equal approach, but to make the mandatory is tantamount to saying six at a time required....

bdpaz:

I think six four shot arrays would be the best way to run 24 rounds. Both guns are driven stark raving mad from the number of reloads. Just kidding, that 24 number is a clear advantage to the eight shot unless it is broken up in such a way that the six shooter can make up time shooting in and out of a position. I feel like you have a better understanding of the fact that 6 and 8 cannot be equal in a fluid stage. I am stubbornly trying to find ways to make it possible for the six to beat the eight.

[bdpaz]

I would agree that is does not take all advantages away from the 8-shot gun, but in terms of neutrality, *assuming nobody misses*, then the stage design should be so that it would not be advantageous to carry the remaining rounds of an 8-shot to the next target array. Notice how I emphasized no misses. Your top shooters are probably not going to have many of those and could shoot the course of fire the exact same way with a 6 as they would an 8 and probably come out with the same overall time. But for most club level shooters or beginners, the advantage of the 8-shot gun is only for make up shots, not to gain the competitive edge over a 6-shot gun. This is where my interpretation of the 6-shot neutrality rule comes from. The competitive edge goes to those who can shoot without missing and those who can run the stage faster vs. gaining an edge just because of equipment.

I know when I first started shooting ICORE I ran a friends 627 before I bought a 686. True, the 8 round for make-ups helped, especially when I was new. But my problems weren't so much the misses as I didn't yet possess the skills to know how to run the stages best; where to reload to save time, not taking standing reloads, order in which to shoot different arrays. Some of the longer field courses (30+rd minimum), you could have approached a few different ways, and I just didn't know the best way to do so. But since I have been shooting I have developed those skills better and now the only advantage is when I still occasionally have a mike and either roll on or take a standing reload.

A lot of "probably"s in there!

Eliminating misses is great in theory and in some applications, but are you saying that even the top shooters will consistently burn down a plate rack or star just a fast with a 6 shot gun as with an 8 shot gun? I think it is the mid-pack shooters who benefit most from trying to eliminate all misses while the top shooters know the s*** happens and benefit from having that extra shot or two available. I know some pretty good revolver shooters who run 8 shot guns but make their stage plans as if they have 6 shots.

[bdpaz]

bdpaz:

I think six four shot arrays would be the best way to run 24 rounds. Both guns are driven stark raving mad from the number of reloads. Just kidding, that 24 number is a clear advantage to the eight shot unless it is broken up in such a way that the six shooter can make up time shooting in and out of a position. I feel like you have a better understanding of the fact that 6 and 8 cannot be equal in a fluid stage. I am stubbornly trying to find ways to make it possible for the six to beat the eight.

You need stages like that to make 6=8 but if then if you think about it the 4 shot arrays let the 8 shot guys carry 4 to the next one so you'd need 5 shot arrays but that only leaves the 6 shot guys with one make up vs three so you'd have to go with 3 shot arrays but then you're back to letting the 8 shot guns skip reloads... and so on and so on until your brain explodes!

Everybody misses occasionally, including the good shooters pushing hard, and just pulling the trigger once more beats reloading.

[Forrest Halley]

I'm probably not going to miss paper out to thirty yards. I am probably going to have Bravos, Charlies, and Deltas. Maybe some NSMs also. The extra rounds come into play at the advanced level also. Steel sounds great too until it becomes gunshots without dings and no shooter, regardless of skill level, is going to consciously leave steel standing to the tune of five seconds a pop. Probably a good thing I've got moonclips with 8 rounds in them instead of six.

[RevoWood123]

Forrest I understand what you are getting at, what I was offering is that if the stages are designed well then the capacity in the gun will make no difference other than make up shots. The stage should be designed so that there are equal number of reloads to both the 6 and the 8 shot guns. The trick is doing it without putting in "mandatory reload between arrays 2 & 3" sort of thing. Essentially make a fluid COF, but make it so that it doesn't make sense to carry 2-4 rounds to the next set of targets with you.

Yes I know there are a lot of probably's, but in my experience, I have not noticed a difference between shooting a 627 and a 686 on times because of misses, it was usually due to poor stage execution.

[RevoWood123]

I'm probably not going to miss paper out to thirty yards. I am probably going to have Bravos, Charlies, and Deltas. Maybe some NSMs also. The extra rounds come into play at the advanced level also. Steel sounds great too until it becomes gunshots without dings and no shooter, regardless of skill level, is going to consciously leave steel standing to the tune of five seconds a pop. Probably a good thing I've got moonclips with 8 rounds in them instead of six.

I'm right there with you, Bs, Cs, & Ds are still hits and that's better than a miss. But as a guy with only 6 rounds in my gun, if I miss a target, I am probably moving on with the mike instead of a standing reload because of time to slow momentum, time to reload/reacquire and time to start moving again and then knowing there will be another reload needed because I am down one in the cylinder, its better to take the 5 sec hit.

[Forrest Halley]

I would be carrying those four rounds and banking on cleaning the stage. If I screw up along the way...I should be okay with the time saved by carrying the rounds until the point of failure.

What I failed to mention is that I'd be using the extra rounds to make up the time with the Bravos and Charlies for sure and any called Deltas in USPSA.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Forrest Halley

[RevoWood123]

I would be carrying those four rounds and banking on cleaning the stage. If I screw up along the way...I should be okay with the time saved by carrying the rounds until the point of failure.

Hahahaha. I am only laughing reliving a stage that I absolutely fell apart on. I was shooting my buddies 627 that day and it was a long field course with both steel and paper and lots of barriers in play as well as foot faults. I cleaned the first small arrays and botched a star, reloaded and used one round to clean it, ran the next few arrays and got to the last array, one clip left in the gun running from the previous array. There were only 2 targets left on the last array, small little steel poppers that were painted black and but in the brush in the back of the bay. I took 4 shots and finally the first one, then missed the second one. It was so frustrating at the time, easy to laugh at now.

[Toolguy]

In answer to the OPs original question, I would say - "Not quite - it's still treading water."

[jhgtyre]

In answer to the OPs original question, I would say - "Not quite - it's still treading water."

Seems like a good time to suggest that this thread stay on track.

I am far from opposed to starting a stage design thread, a thread discussing the implementation of Limited 6 in ICORE, or a thread discussing the possibility that ICORE seems to be retrogressive in regards to revolvers with capacities greater than 6.

Larry Drake

The Moderating Team