2016 Area 2 CO vs. Production

[acpie360]

Stage winning HF comparisons between CO and Prod from the 2016 A2 results:

There were only four stages where CO outshot Prod and they were all done by Rob Leatham.

Edited May 19, 2016 by acpie360

[ctay]

Interesting. I would have expected a little better showing on CO.

Do you think the talent level of CO was the difference? What I mean is did the top Prod guys stay Prod (aside from Rob) leaving the talent pool in CO somewhat smaller?

[d_striker]

Not really meaningful data.

I don't remember exactly what stages were which but I do remember that 14 and 15 didn't have much movement on them.

Most of the stages at this match had a good bit of movement. TGO's robo-knees don't really allow him to move around too well.

Dave Sevigny, on the other hand, is one of the most agile shooters I've seen.

Edited May 19, 2016 by d_striker

[acpie360]

CO champ was Rob Leatham and Prod champ was Dave Sevigny. Dave outshot Rob 10 out of 15.

[acpie360]

Not really meaningful data.

I don't remember exactly what stages were which but I do remember that 14 and 15 didn't have much movement on them.

Most of the stages at this match had a good bit of movement. TGO's robo-knees don't really allow him to move around too well.

Dave Sevigny, on the other hand, is one of the most agile shooters I've seen.

Since Rob's gun had backup sights, it was possible for him to shoot those stages using iron sights even though the red dot was on.

[ChuckS]

Here are the stages:Stages_2016.pdf

[d_striker]

Not really meaningful data.

I don't remember exactly what stages were which but I do remember that 14 and 15 didn't have much movement on them.

Most of the stages at this match had a good bit of movement. TGO's robo-knees don't really allow him to move around too well.

Dave Sevigny, on the other hand, is one of the most agile shooters I've seen.

Since Rob's gun had backup sights, it was possible for him to shoot those stages using iron sights even though the red dot was on.

What does that have to do with being able to move around quickly in a match where a lot of movement is required?

[d_striker]

It will be interesting, and I think more relevant, to see results of Production vs CO at Nationals this year if they keep the stages exactly the same for both.

Edited May 19, 2016 by d_striker

[BritinUSA]

It will be interesting, and I think more relevant, to see results of Production vs CO at Nationals this year if they keep the stages exactly the same for both.

Especially if we compare only the competitors that shot both matches, though I suspect that there will be some changes to the stages (except those destined to be classifiers).

[d_striker]

It will be interesting, and I think more relevant, to see results of Production vs CO at Nationals this year if they keep the stages exactly the same for both.

Especially if we compare only the competitors that shot both matches, though I suspect that there will be some changes to the stages (except those destined to be classifiers).

Yeah. I also suspect they will change it around a bit which makes sense. Otherwise, the people shooting Production would already have a run on the exact same COF if they didn't move stuff around.

[trgt]

My anecdotal experience thus far is CO is no advantage/disadvantage vs PROD 8-10 yards and in, some advantage 12-15 yards, and definite advantage 18 yards + ... Based on seeing where I compared against peer PROD shooters there, other matches, and classifiers. BTW, I suspect that HHF on classifiers with short distance like 'can you count' will need to track more closely to production, where folks are basically point shooting at full speed. CO imparts nothing magical that would justify a higher HHF there.

Edited June 15, 2016 by trgt

[rowdyb]

I'm shooting both Nats back to back and with the same base gun. So it will be an interesting personal comparison. I hope the keep the stages exactly the same just for this reason.

[JGus]

I don't understand the purpose of this data? There were more higher classified, high quality shooters in Production vs CO. Anyone could have predicted this outcome. It's comparing apples to oranges. Too many variables.

I score much better shooting Production vs CO as i've been shooting PRD for 3 years and CO for 3 matches. After i've shot CO for a few years and gained proficiency than I could compare the two vs my own proficiency.

[NickBlasta]

If you have two people of equivalent levels of skill, at worst, Prod and CO will be the same. No, irons aren't faster on easy targets for someone experienced with using an optic. CO will start to gain an advantage whenever the shots get tougher, like partials, distance shots, one handed, shooting on the move, etc.

I don't think you'll ever see a dramatic average difference between the HFs of the two divisions, though. Less time getting a sight picture isn't a huge benefit when most of the time comes from gun handling.

[trgt]

If you have two people of equivalent levels of skill, at worst, Prod and CO will be the same. No, irons aren't faster on easy targets for someone experienced with using an optic. ....

Yes, I agree, perhaps it would have been better stated that CO is potentially slower on close in targets. Iron sight shooter will be target focused and that fiber doesn't dis-appear at any point. CO any slight miss on index and you don't see the dot, you are now just shooting based on gun in front of you.

(just my observation for quite some time CO and before shooting it open minor -- heck, i'm only 73% CO getting ready squeak into A, but by percentage that is 11th best CO classification nationally over many top 20 in A and Master)

But my point really is that for close in shots / classifiers, there is no advantage to CO such that it would warrant a higher hit factor than production. Ben or Robert would do these faster with CO??

Maybe the HHF too aggressive CO on some of the classifiers?

[IronArcher]

I actually find this encouraging.
Now when I can no longer get a great focus on my front sight (old eyes) I'll have an option that keeps me at a similar level.

[PatJones]

I don't understand the purpose of this data? There were more higher classified, high quality shooters in Production vs CO. Anyone could have predicted this outcome. It's comparing apples to oranges. Too many variables.

I know what you mean. Maybe if there was someone like Rob Leatham shooting Carry Optics, you'd be better able to better compare the high hit factors.

[ChuckS]

I don't understand the purpose of this data? There were more higher classified, high quality shooters in Production vs CO. Anyone could have predicted this outcome. It's comparing apples to oranges. Too many variables.

I know what you mean. Maybe if there was someone like Rob Leatham shooting Carry Optics, you'd be better able to better compare the high hit factors.

[JGus]

I don't understand the purpose of this data? There were more higher classified, high quality shooters in Production vs CO. Anyone could have predicted this outcome. It's comparing apples to oranges. Too many variables.

I know what you mean. Maybe if there was someone like Rob Leatham shooting Carry Optics, you'd be better able to better compare the high hit factors.

You're just not getting it. That's ok, numbers can be confusing for some people. Still too many variables to make it relevant.

[IronArcher]

Wondering how many think CO must score higher than production for it to be a viable class.

[teros135]

Wondering how many think CO must score higher than production for it to be a viable class.

Good question. The dot may be compensating for poor vision in some (older?) folks, so there might be even. In others, you'd think there would be a general advantage in target acquisition (especially distant or tight targets) and general speed, as in Open. Maybe not, but we probably don't have enough data yet to know.

[mreed911]

Folks who do well in production tell me CO is slower because they're waiting on the dot to reciprocate on the slide to reacquire it vs open where it's on the frame, not moving.

[trgt]

Folks who do well in production tell me CO is slower because they're waiting on the dot to reciprocate on the slide to reacquire it vs open where it's on the frame, not moving.

CO vs production don't have to wait, you just have a 'bloom' of color vs blur of fiber optic, the slide is cycling same speed between the two. It won't be crisp dot to track like open (frame mount, compensator, faster cycle). IMHO with CO you trade away concept of sight picture (target focus <--> sight focus), which for older folks is nice as you can stay target focus, but now you need to think about how sharp the dot is to break next shot ( sharp dot / precise aim <--- > color over area you want ), that'll be new to someone coming from Production (different challenge besides learning the dot), and different for someone that was shooting Open with much more stable dot.

Edited June 17, 2016 by trgt

[mreed911]

I can't say with any authority or experience. I shoot SS/Prod for USPSA and have never shot Open. I shoot RFPO for Steel Challenge but that's on a S&W Victory so the optic never moves, like an Open gun.

I might make a run at Carry Optics later in the year, it will depend on whether I acquire a carry optics firearm. Right now I'm actually leaning towards the Glock 19 optics ready package, only because I'm hearing it seems to be a little faster to move than the 17. I shoot a non-optics 17 for IDPA. I shoot IDPA much less frequently than USPSA.

[NickBlasta]

Folks who do well in production tell me CO is slower because they're waiting on the dot to reciprocate on the slide to reacquire it vs open where it's on the frame, not moving.

Their irons reciprocate too. The only reason a production shooter would be slower with an optic is a lack of familiarity with the sight. Assuming equal amounts of practice, an optic is better.