6-Shot Neutrality and Stage designing

[RevoWood123]

Since there has been much discussion about this topic in other threads that were not specific to this topic, I thought it best to start one here. I'd like to hear peoples ideas about this topic and how it pertains to growth in ICORE as well.

I am going to link two other threads where some of this was discussed so that there is a base for the discussion to start. I am sure that some of the posters from the other discussions would like to continue the conversation and input from all is welcome.

Limited 6 interest thread

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=206430

Is ICORE dead in the Mid-Atlantic

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=208764

First let me start by asking, are the stage designs (which are to be "6-shot neutral") making the experience less fun and keeping ICORE from growing? Sure there are more factors that could be at issue, but expressly, what is the perception of ICORE from non-ICORE shooters on the basis of "6-shot neutral" stage designs?

[pskys2]

I've shot a handful of ICORE, mostly Regional Matches. While 6 shot neutral sounds good there are some issues.

All shots are scored Minor, to make a reasonable PF you're looking at under 700 f/s in any 44/45. Note I shot my first ICORE match with a M29.

And the recoil of a 45 at minor is still more than a 38 at minor. So if you go with a 38, an 8 shot is as viable as a 6 shot.

You have the steel/make up shot issue and the 8 shot always gives you a cushion.

When shooting ICORE with a 6 shot I never noticed the need for extra shots but getting a load I liked was always a bit more problematic.

But shooting ICORE with an 8 shot I notice most moon clips have 2 shots left.

Shooting ANY action pistol match, USPSA or ICORE, with the 8 shot is easier on the hand and easier to get a good load.

So from all my rambling my impression is the 6 shot is competitive, but the perception is it's not. And I don't think the 6 shot neutral stages change that perception.

Would opening up the COF restrictions help grow ICORE? Probably not, it would just feed into the perception that you need an 8 shot.

[bdpaz]

It would be helpful (to me, at least) if everyone commenting could include a description of how their matches are made 6 shot neutral. "6 shot neutral is fine" or "6 shot neutral is the tool of the devil" doesn't mean much as does "We do 6 shot neutral by way of equal number of planned reloads and some make ups available for both capacities and it is fine" or "Our matches see 6 shot neutral as removing any advantage to the 8 shot gun so we get stages like nine hits, mandatory reload, nine hits, mandatory reload, etc. so it is the tool of the devil"

From the other threads I see three general methods of defining 6 shot neutral:

1. Absolute equality with no advantage to the 8 shooter.

2. Equal number of planned reloads with stages set to allow no more than 6 hits from any location and to make it advantageous to load between positions. Some consideration is given to the 8 shot guns having more make up shots available but it is not a major factor. For example, a 4 shot array then a 5 shot array, then a 6 shot array with the shooting positions far enough apart to allow a reload on the move.

3. Both capacities shoot the stage in the same "look and feel" where the 6 shot gun may have an additional planned reload but both reload in the same way (moving or standing) and both have no make ups available without deviating from their planned reloads. For example, a 24 round lateral movement stage with with shots per array as 4-2-2-4-4-2-2-4.

Method 1 may not be common but I see it regularly so please don't discount it in this discussion. I and some others are not imagining theoretical problems with 6 shot neutral, they do exist.

I personally like (and am using) method 3 but I am fine with shooting matches using method 2, particularly when there is a plate rack and I have an 8 shot gun.

[No.343]

A year or two ago Josh Lentz beat all the iron sighted guns at the IRC. He was shooting classic.

[NV Guide]

I am MD of our local matches for the past three years. We run an average of 20 shooters and up to 30. We have hosted two regionals and this year will host the IRC in September.

Stage design for major matches is deliberate and focused solely for ICORE. These are set up using all three of the above methods.

Stages for the monthly matches are more of a problem as they will be modified and used for USPSA match the next day. Sometimes the changes are simply moving targets around and things are fine other times there is no simple way to make it work without major redesign. These changes can be taxing on our small setup crew.

What I would like is implementing the Limited 6 class and elimination of 6 shot neutral. This allows ANY stage to be completely equitable between all competitors within the limited and classic divisions.

Unlimited 6 shot shooters are the only ones hurt by this. I know there are some out there but have none locally. They probably need an excuse to buy a new revo anyway.

These changes would open up stage design to nearly any configuration a designer could dream up. Using other stages from other organizations simplifies things when I am running out of time and need to get it together.

I don't know if it will improve participation on not. I hope our smooth running matches and enthusiastic shooters will entice others to join us.

[ChrisC]

I just shot the southwest regional. I shot classic division so I obviously was limited to 6 rounds. The stage design was very good and for the most part 6 round neutral. There were a few stages the 8 shot had a definite advantage on. It's really hard to avoid the 8 advantage and use innovative stage design. The 6 neutral stage design isn't keeping people out of ICORE anymore than 8 shot stage design is keeping people from shooting USPSA. You can have stages that have 6 rounds per array but that isn't the true spirit behind 6 round neutral. The easiest way for this discussion is to post up examples.

[Forrest Halley]

Why doesn't ICORE just go ahead and define exactly what six shot neutral is???

The reason I am saying this is simply where does it start and end?

I can make a stage where the six shot guns don't have any more reloads than an eight. This is a big difference between the two guns in a long stage. The point is then raised, "But the six shot doesn't have any makeups." So how many makeups are we going to factor in? One or two? What about steel on a stage where this is a real concern with the taking the miss/reload dilemna?

Where is the break even point between crippling the eight/exalting the six and the six being left behind? Where do you say, "You chose the number of rounds in your cylinder; make do."?

A solution may be to make the scoring benefit the line cutting ability of the larger calibers in six shot guns and to change the Bravo and Charlie value for the eight shot guns. Instead of 1s and 2s perhaps 1.5s and 3s? This would create a greater focus upon accuracy and offset the advantage a little. It would also not necessitate any changes to stage design.

USPSA failed at this, but they are an eight shot organization. The 1911 is king there and always will be. ICORE has a chance to get it right without going IDPbananas.

[Cd662]

I always thought the push for 6 round neutral was for the sake of 6 shooters not getting frustrated with shooting rather than competitive equity. Classic shooters and people shooting Open 6 or Limited 6 at the IRC are competing against similar equipment, so the challenge is equitable amongst all of them. For me, a 6 shot neutral stage is one where you can complete the stage with an even number of speedloaders or moonclips, but this doesn't mean the round count has to be divisible by 2. If anything, a great example of a frustrating stage would be one where every array was 6 pieces of steel. There's a regional match around here that has done that twice. It's still fair to shoot because all 6 shooters are shooting it, but it's frustrating. Let's say there are 4 arrays of 6 targets. If you miss one shot you are eating a standing reload to make it up, and another reload to get back on track with your shooting. The average ability shooter is going to miss more than one shot. There is a potential to be adding a lot of extra shooting and reloading time, whereas the 8 shot gun just has to pull the trigger a few more times, and an extra reload STILL isn't the end of the world because it doesn't force a second one on top of it.

Most of the 6 shot guns competing in ICORE are probably Classic guns, not 625s. The scoring system is working fine and trying to change it based off bullet size is really not a good idea. The scoring system is already extremely unforgiving. New shooters get absolutely destroyed. If this thread is about drawing new people in, making the scoring system MORE brutal definitely isn't going to help.

[MWP]

I would imagine this forum represents the largest single online accumulation of ICORE shooters, so I guess the question should be asked here:

How many of you own a gun that is a true "Limited 6" revolver, and don't own an 8 shot?

I seem to run into many more people with 627s and 929s that just don't come to the regional or IRC than anyone else who asks me where to start with their clipped 6 gun. Once again, I think we're asking the wrong questions if we're looking to grow the sport.

I see lots of faces at USPSA Revolver Nationals that I don't see at the IRC. From the top of the pack to the bottom. And the other way around too.

[Bosshoss]

A match with a bunch of 6 shot arrays will get boring quick. I personally don't care for USPSA stages that are shoot 8 and shoot 8, etc.

I don't like shooting box's whether they are on the ground or on the wall.(ports) I prefer the wide open shoot them as you see them and break up the arrays with walls and/or barrels. Let the shooter figure out where the best place to shoot which targets from.

Good stage designers can make stages that would make a 6 shot gun very close to a 8 shot gun BUT 8 shot will ALWAYS have a advantage unless some kind of scoring penalty is applied. It still may not be equal but it closes the gap.

A scoring penalty hurts the lower classed shooters more than the better/best shooters as the better shooters are not throwing as many bravo and charlie hits anyway and if there is a scoring penalty they will slow down slightly and make sure of their hits. The newer shooters and lower classed shooters might be shooting as accurate as they can and don't have the option of slowing down and shoot all A's.

The problem is not every club has a experienced stage designer and newer clubs may not even have any ICORE experienced shooters.

ICORE might benefit if they had a stage book of field courses that could be downloaded for new clubs that would help for the first few matches until they get more comfortable designing their own stages.

I actually think ICORE stages should be simpler than USPSA to design and set up. Why? because ICORE is dealing with only 6/8 shot guns and USPSA has to deal with divisions that run from 6 up to 30 rounds of capacity. No one wants a stage where a open shooter can stand in one spot and shoot 30 rounds and never move(except maybe some open shooters ). USPSA stage designers have to make all the shooters have a challenge and make it fun for everyone.

In one of the examples above with 6 pieces of steel not being equal for a 6 shot gun vs a 8 shot gun. A couple of ways to even this out some. Do not have shooting box's but have a shooting area. Have a 2 target array before and/or after the steel array with the steel array at least partially visible from the 2 shot arrays . Shooter can shoot the 2 target array and then take a couple of shots at steel before moving toward the steel and finish off what is left.

Could also put a couple of barrels in front of the steel so 3 or 4 could be shot from 1 side and have to move several feet to engage the rest from other side of barrels. This would give the 6 shot guns a chance to reload.

Shooting box's tend to lock you into "shoot these from here" while shooting areas give many options and with good stage design can challenge a shooter equally no matter if they are using 6 or 8 shot guns.

IMO

[Forrest Halley]

For me, a 6 shot neutral stage is one where you can complete the stage with an even number of speedloaders or moonclips, but this doesn't mean the round count has to be divisible by 2.

Most of the 6 shot guns competing in ICORE are probably Classic guns, not 625s. The scoring system is working fine and trying to change it based off bullet size is really not a good idea. The scoring system is already extremely unforgiving.If this thread is about drawing new people in, making the scoring system MORE brutal definitely isn't going to help.

An even number of moonclips or loaders is six shot neutral? Surely you mean even reloads between 8&6 there. Otherwise, I cannot see how it works as it becomes a runaway on the reloads over 18 rounds.

Your point on the scoring system already being harsh on a beginner is valid, but you have to change something to create an offset to the 33% increase in firepower. Do you have any ideas to facilitate neutrality of your own?

[Forrest Halley]

I would imagine this forum represents the largest single online accumulation of ICORE shooters, so I guess the question should be asked here:

How many of you own a gun that is a true "Limited 6" revolver, and don't own an 8 shot?

I seem to run into many more people with 627s and 929s that just don't come to the regional or IRC than anyone else who asks me where to start with their clipped 6 gun. Once again, I think we're asking the wrong questions if we're looking to grow the sport.

I see lots of faces at USPSA Revolver Nationals that I don't see at the IRC. From the top of the pack to the bottom. And the other way around too.

I was one guy in the universe that had three different calibers of six shot moon guns (working on a fourth) until I was mugged by a 929.

Clipped six guns are an odd duck. Their shooters are either oblivious and stumbled upon a gross of ranch .45 clips or they are savvy and get Hearthco or TK clips for a pet gun that is custom cut. At least that was my journey into revolvers. Seems likely that a 625 would be, if not cheaper, then easier to gather the gear to get started in competition with.

Someone suggested slots to be awarded to encourage crossover between disciplines. The ranking levels are at least comparable between USPSA and ICORE, but idpa shouldn't be discounted as it is where a lot of shooters get their start, but their revolver participation is likely very sporadic. I was poking people to shoot with me, but once you beat them...back to the auto they ran.

[Cd662]

Forrest -

There are realities that have to be faced in action shooting. Not every gun is going to be optimal for every division. ICORE examined the prospects of creating a Limited 6 division and they didn't go for it. The people that want to shoot ICORE in Limited and who want to be competitive are going to buy an 8 shot gun. The only people that have 6 shot moonclip guns for the most part are people who shot IDPA Enhanced Service Revolver or shot USPSA where the 625 was the only game in town. The 625 and the 610 pretty much are useless guns aside from those gaming purposes. No one wants to buy a 625 to shoot at the range for fun. It's expensive, it requires moonclips, and the ammo is more expensive. The vast majority of casual, entry level shooters are going to be running 6 shot guns chambered in 38 Special or 357 magnum. If you really want to be competitive in Limited or Open, you have to buy an 8 shot gun. That's just what it is. The game has been like that ever since the 8 shot guns came out.

There is nothing that says that a 6 shot gun has to be able to be as good as an 8 shot gun in the overall standings. Someone brought up that Josh Lentz places very well in the overall - no kidding, the man is a beast with a revolver. That's not the case for most individuals. The IRC had some stages that were 35 or even over 40 rounds if I recall over the past few years. People dropped loading devices and didn't have enough ammunition to finish the stage. That's some pretty high round count stuff, but the majority of these discussions are based on course design for the local match.

If you have a field course like Bosshoss mentioned, you could develop a stage where makeup shots could be made at a shooting position. That would be a good stage. A lot of ICORE stages are also stand and shoot affairs, and many frequently utilize shooting boxes. There's really not a TON of creativity you can have. 6 shot guns are still going to try to group their plan into groups of 5 or 6 shots, and if that isn't available, they will reload early to return to that. The plan could be 5 shots, 4 shots, 6 shots, 4 shots, and 6 shots. You're still looking at the same number of reloads either way, unless you want to carry one round in the cylinder, shoot once, and do a standing reload. This is a terrible idea from a competitive standpoint. So no, I do not think there should be a same number of reloads between 6 and 8 shot guns, there was no typo made. If you have an 16 round stage, an 8 shot can do it with one reload, a 6 shot can do it with 2. If you're a clever stage designer, you can make it so the 8 shot gun SHOULD reload for the sake of being more efficient (moving while reloading).

We don't have to offset anything. These topics keep coming up over and over, regardless of discipline. Everyone wants to make everything equal and it's kind of ridiculous. Shooting games have an inherent cost to them. Should it be a race to the best gear? No. When it comes to revolver though, if you want to be competitive, it's going to cost a few hundred dollars no matter how you slice it. There aren't a lot of good gun smiths, the gear isn't commonly available, etc etc etc. If someone enjoys shooting Limited and really wants to be competitive, they need an 8 shot gun. If anything, ICORE has traditionally been an 8 shot game, not a 6 shot. That was a big reason why Craig pushed for the formation of the Retro (eventually, Classic) division. You would have to start coming up with arbitrary score changes for every gun. "If this gun isn't chamfered, it has a big disadvantage from a chamfered gun, so subtract X time per shot. But this other gun is chambered in 40, so the bullet is only slightly bigger than a 358 caliber bullet but it has moonclips so it has a faster reload than a 6 shot speedloader gun but a capacity disadvantage, so it should have this other time modifier. And let's not leave out the Webley 455 shooters, it takes longer for them to break the guns in half and shove them back together, that necessitates an offset." This isn't supposition. Someone always has these ideas for USPSA and IDPA on how to take some gun type that not a lot of people shoot and make it "even". Other sports don't do this. Things are classed with similar things. That keeps it fair. If there was a 50/50 split of 6 to 8 shot Limited shooters, maybe I could see it as a more pressing issue. The IRC last year barely had any Classic OR Limited 6 shooters. I think there were only 3 Open 6 shooters.

ICORE has offered a work around. If there are that many people shooting 625s or 610s (and 610s are pretty rare guns), the match director can recognize the Limited 6 shot sub category. If you have a sanctioned match, you can offer an award for it. I don't understand why this is so complicated and why it comes up constantly. ICORE desperately needs new shooters and new blood and we're still spinning the wheels on a discussion that's been had about 4 times on here over the past 6 months in various threads.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Cd662

[bdpaz]

<...snipped a bunch of stuff...>

We don't have to offset anything. These topics keep coming up over and over, regardless of discipline. Everyone wants to make everything equal and it's kind of ridiculous.

<...snipped some more stuff...>

ICORE has offered a work around. If there are that many people shooting 625s or 610s (and 610s are pretty rare guns), the match director can recognize the Limited 6 shot sub category. If you have a sanctioned match, you can offer an award for it. I don't understand why this is so complicated and why it comes up constantly. ICORE desperately needs new shooters and new blood and we're still spinning the wheels on a discussion that's been had about 4 times on here over the past 6 months in various threads.

We are not directly discussing Limited 6 or making it "fair" for new shooters or making everyone equal so I'm not sure where we're spinning our wheels. The point here is to determine what 6 shot neutral means so yes, one possible definition is that it means make 6 and 8 shot guns equally competitive but no one seems to be in favor of that definition.

In my opinion everyone has preferred some variation of making it fun to shot a 6 shot gun without going for scorched earth competitive equality - but no one can show where the rules say that is how "6 round neutral" is defined. Point me to the rules to support my argument that trying to make them equal is not required.

Edited July 21, 2015 by bdpaz

[PatJones]

Locally, 6 shot neutral is interpreted to mean an equal number of mandatory reloads at a given position. 1-6 shots _or_ 9-12 shots would be neutral. If there is steel from a position there is typically only 5 shots required.

These shooting games are easier with more ammo, there's no way around that. It does let a competitor choose their level of challenge.

[Forrest Halley]

I can count by six and recently eight and have even shot high round count matches with a five shot snubby. I realize that the starter gun for ICORE is going to be a six shot K or L frame with HKS speedloaders and Uncle Mike's nylon pouches and holster. I enjoy the mental exercise of breaking down the stage for various capacities so therein have I interest in keeping six shot revolvers playing the game in every division. I am all for a twenty reload stage and half of it split mini poppers favoring a shotgun, but ICORE said the stages should be six shot neutral, so I'm flexing my limited skull noodlage to that end. I'd even shoot said stage with a snub nosed five shot and smile from ear to ear.

I will honestly say I don't much care for your explanation of six shot neutral. I am not looking to make all things equal just to find the best way to maintain the advertised neutrality. I am aware that 8≠6 and shall forever remain that way. I was proposing solutions to offset this inequality in the preservation of six shot neutrality, which has yet to be concretely defined. I was also attempting to show the elasticity that could be applied to the definition by considering makeup shots and steel allowances.

Never did I mention anything other than capacity in application of a time offset which would be applicable to B's and C's only and would more effectively execute the major/minor offset that failed in USPSA. Webleys are very neat revolvers and the user Cherryriver had some cool videos of USPSA matches a while back using one. I personally have no interest in any one division, but would prefer not to make safequeens out of people's six shot guns. So they aren't the cutting edge and may have to let a shot stand from time to time, that's alright. However making them three reloads behind in a COF isn't right.

My ideas may not be the answer, but what if they evoke a thought from someone else that is? USPSA had their rule change drastically alter the game in that division with the acceptance of eight shot revolvers. All thanks to folks that didn't pay attention to anything but what they wanted and stated great things about improved participation. It didn't hold water and drove all the six shot minor guns back into the safe.

Self moderated.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Forrest Halley

[Carmoney]

What I would like is implementing the Limited 6 class and elimination of 6 shot neutral. This allows ANY stage to be completely equitable between all competitors within the limited and classic divisions.

Unlimited 6 shot shooters are the only ones hurt by this. I know there are some out there but have none locally. They probably need an excuse to buy a new revo anyway.

These changes would open up stage design to nearly any configuration a designer could dream up. Using other stages from other organizations simplifies things when I am running out of time . . .

I originally saw the Limited-6 option as unnecessary, but I am slowly coming around to understand this rationale. It would be much easier to design fun matches, or piggy-back onto stages from other disciplines, without having to deal with the whole 6-shot neutral requirement.

I understand it is a serious change, but we need to figure out ways to attract new attention, and encourage more matches being run. Maybe this could help.

[ChrisC]

Stage 7 from the southwest was the epitome of 6 neutral. It had 2 stars, two 6 shot plate racks and 4 paper targets. You had to move around the fault line to see everything. 10/10/10 from each place I shot.

[bdpaz]

Stage 7 from the southwest was the epitome of 6 neutral. It had 2 stars, two 6 shot plate racks and 4 paper targets. You had to move around the fault line to see everything. 10/10/10 from each place I shot.

So can I assume you fall into the "6 shot neutral is equal number of planned reloads and don't sweat the extra make up shots available" camp?

I'd say that in this example the 8 shot gun has a significant advantage with 4 vs 2 availble make up shots per position (with the same number of reloads) on stars and plate racks. That is fine with me as it sounds like fun with either capacity, but using one of the dictionary definition of neutral which is "not supporting or helping either side" I wouldn't call it neutral as per the rules.

[ChrisC]

As Rules director of ICORE you are assuming mostly correct.. 6 shot neutral means no obvious advantage for the 8 shot gun. We all know there are advantages of higher capacities but if more than 8 shots or 6 or less shots are required in an array you are 6 shot neutral. The exact same number of reloads are up to you as the course designer/match director. If you require some movement reloads become less important.

[Forrest Halley]

This is why "neutral" needs to be defined concretely with examples by the ICORE folks.

Careful 13 is more than eight as is 24. With no max array number the can of worms is bottomless.

The man who came up with the idea of a COF book for clubs had a great idea.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Forrest Halley

[ChrisC]

OK, I'll propose to add a definition to the BOD.

[okshootist]

There's a difference in six-shot neutral and six-shot friendly. I'm primarily a Classic shooter and fall into the "same number of unavoidable reloads" camp. I want the opportunity to place well in the overall but if limited or open shooters are using eight shots to take down six steel and I don't beat them, I consider that my fault. I think the "buy an eight shot" point of view overlooks the fact that not everyone has the hand size to properly shoot an N frame revolver. Hopefully defining the term will resolve this issue.

[PatJones]

Be careful not to water down the sport too much in search of equity between the different revolvers. One of the strong points of ICORE is that we have more freedom in stage design than we would in USPSA.

The working definition of no 7-8 shot arrays allows allows for the 6-shot guns to compete when shot well. If you want to cap a shooting position with no more than 12 rounds, I don't think that would change much in a field course. 2 standing reloads at a single position gets to be a bit much on a field course.

Our local club runs one field course each month and a stand and shoot speed stage featuring steel targets. The speed stage is usually a couple standing reloads and sized so that the number of reloads are the same for 6 and 8 shot guns. The round count usually allows a couple misses for a 6-shot. A 12 round limit would make these courses less appealing. These stand and shoot stages require less planning and setup for a small club.

I could support a maximum number of rounds per stage. This would allow me to answer the question of how many loading devices a shooter should have for a match. Is there a reason to exceed 32 rounds, the max size for a USPSA match? I would find the smaller IDPA-type course limit a bit dull.

If we make changes to the round count limits, we may consider defining different courses of fire as USPSA has done.

Edited July 21, 2015 by PatJones

[bdpaz]

This is why "neutral" needs to be defined concretely with examples by the ICORE folks.

Careful 13 is more than eight as is 24. With no max array number the can of worms is bottomless.

Defining it concretely might have unintended consequences. Maybe the first step is to add some additional information to clarify the intent?

There's a difference in six-shot neutral and six-shot friendly. I'm primarily a Classic shooter and fall into the "same number of unavoidable reloads" camp. I want the opportunity to place well in the overall but if limited or open shooters are using eight shots to take down six steel and I don't beat them, I consider that my fault. I think the "buy an eight shot" point of view overlooks the fact that not everyone has the hand size to properly shoot an N frame revolver. Hopefully defining the term will resolve this issue.

I think 6 shot friendly is what we are trying to accomplish, but that probably still isn't clear without some additional guidance.

The working definition of no 7-8 shot arrays allows allows for the 6-shot guns to compete when shot well.

I like that idea! It leave stage design wide open with just a minor restriction that keeps the 6 shot guns in the game.