Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Whoops!

2020 PCC Nationals Feedback

Recommended Posts

On 6/27/2020 at 7:43 AM, Whoops! said:

It’s not because they had a magical ability to evaluate the speed of their bullet vs the speed of a burst movement target at over 50 yards.

 

125 grain, 1000fps, 125 power factor.

 

50 yards - 150 feet - @ 1000 fps requires 0.15 second. 

 

No worries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 6:14 PM, ltdmstr said:

I don't have a problem with the stage design, other than probably not being able to hit the swinger at that distance.  But I do think there's an argument to be made for the fact that targets at that distance aren't really "practical" in the sense that in real life at 55-70 yards, you shouldn't really be engaging anything.  Rather, you should be heading in the opposite direction.

Just to be clear, 55-70 yard targets are not "practical" for a rifle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

125 grain, 1000fps, 125 power factor.

 

50 yards - 150 feet - @ 1000 fps requires 0.15 second. 

 

No worries. 


 

You left out the key part of the equation - the speed of the swinger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Whoops! said:


 

You left out the key part of the equation - the speed of the swinger.

 

No, I figured 0.15 second would answer the question for anyone who has seen fast movers. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

No, I figured 0.15 second would answer the question for anyone who has seen fast movers. 

 

 


That doesn’t make mathematical sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pendulums (swingers) as used in USPSA mostly have a period of between 1 (really really crazy fast swingers -- I've been to USA a number of times and shot 20+ years and never seen one that fast) and 2 seconds (medium-to-slow).  That's the way the math works out.  Your typical "wow that's fast" swinger takes a bit under a second and a half per complete cycle.

 

Continuing with the amazingly-crazy-fast 1-second-complete-cycle swinger, assuming Smitty is being evil and only has it visible for 1/4 of the swing, it's visible for .25 seconds per pass.  Any more visibility or any less-fast and you have even more time.

 

You'd want to lead it, but not by a lot.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if it was that fast seems the smart money was to just rip a shot off at it and move on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sarge said:

So if it was that fast seems the smart money was to just rip a shot off at it and move on?

I think the top guys put 3 or 4 at it and got hits.  Pretty typical to put 'safety' shots on any hard target if you can't call the first two reliably.

The cost of an extra shot or two is nothing compared to the penalty for a miss unless the hit factor is way up in the teens, which seems... unlikely... for a stage with a 55-yard swinger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, shred said:

I think the top guys put 3 or 4 at it and got hits.  Pretty typical to put 'safety' shots on any hard target if you can't call the first two reliably.

The cost of an extra shot or two is nothing compared to the penalty for a miss unless the hit factor is way up in the teens, which seems... unlikely... for a stage with a 55-yard swinger.

 

unless you put 3-4 shots at it and still get a miss.... , but yeah, the rest of the stage could make a difference in the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

16 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

I don't have a problem with the stage design, other than probably not being able to hit the swinger at that distance.  But I do think there's an argument to be made for the fact that targets at that distance aren't really "practical" in the sense that in real life at 55-70 yards, you shouldn't really be engaging anything.  Rather, you should be heading in the opposite direction.


This wasn't a handgun match, it's a PCC match using handgun rules. Any other division would've lost their **** if that stage were shot but this was not handguns. People were told about the possibility of long targets before the match, this gave them opportunity to verify bullet drop, and to bring their rangefinder/calculators if they so desired to make this a science. There's so many other things that could be discussed here but no, let's just continue to beat the dead horse about there being some actual skill in shooting at a target.

 

When it's all said and done, the 4 time champion launched several bullets at the swinger and moved on. He had 2M on that stage so with just guessing, he felt those points were worth less than the time saved to get 2 hits and I tend to agree with him (if this was the case)

 

Other things that have crossed my mind this week:


Pro:

  • Plenty of low ports to test more than just hosing ability
  • Steel targets behind some paper force you to call your shots
  • Variety of stages, I didn't feel like that I was shooting the same thing over and over like at some sectionals
  • Awards were quick and prize table was efficient despite a huge amount of people
  • I've said it once, I'll say it again, food was great although my girlfriend who wasn't a shooter had to pay $10 for a sandwich and some fries (I hope USPSA didn't get charged $10/ea!!)

Con:

  • Use of barrels as hardcover in some places while having steel elsewhere.
    • I argued a mike on a swinger over this and still felt I got hosed but it was last stage and I was about to fall over so I didn't request the RM
  • A quick run with the string trimmer to knock down some weeds that have been there since before MG setup
  • Some stages had "one way" to shoot it despite "stand anywhere" stage descriptions.
  • 12 stages doesn't seem like a "nationals" compared to what Open shoots. Two half days isn't a lot of time to recover from a follie nor is it much time to truly test someone's endurance and mental game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, shred said:

I think the top guys put 3 or 4 at it and got hits. 

 

 

According to Max Michelle it takes humans 0.2 second to process a stimulus, he can draw to a sight picture in 0.7 seconds and he said that was 0.5 for the action + 0.2 for reaction to the beep.

 

The best split time I have even heard of was 0.11 seconds (Brian Enos's book, personal best).

 

So. To get 3 shots off you'd need a target presentation of 0.2 + 0.11 + 0.11 seconds + 0.15 seconds for the last bullet to get there in time for a delta. 

 

Would be interesting to know what the presentation time was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

 

According to Max Michelle it takes humans 0.2 second to process a stimulus, he can draw to a sight picture in 0.7 seconds and he said that was 0.5 for the action + 0.2 for reaction to the beep.

 

The best split time I have even heard of was 0.11 seconds (Brian Enos's book, personal best).

 

So. To get 3 shots off you'd need a target presentation of 0.2 + 0.11 + 0.11 seconds + 0.15 seconds for the last bullet to get there in time for a delta. 

 

Would be interesting to know what the presentation time was. 

I've personally seen .09 splits, but that's not how to shoot a 50 yard swinger with uber-splits. 

 

If you can see it move at all (even if not shootable), you can react before it becomes visible, or predict based on the previous swing, so reaction time isn't really part of the equation, like shooting a sliding-mover or a clay bird with a shotgun.  You know where it will be and when, so you shoot there rather than where it is now.

 

If you are sure you can't predict where it will be, and its fast, you can put 4 downrange at .25 splits to cover a seconds worth of time, but that eats up a second, so the HF determines if that's worth doing.

 

I have no idea if either of these was the appropriate action here.  Sound like 'fling a few and drive on' worked out.

 

There was a swinger at IPSC Nats last year that was close, but you shot through a narrow slot and couldn't see it at all otherwise.  There was griping about that being a 'luck target' too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shred said:

If you can see it move at all (even if not shootable),

 

What are the circumstances that allow you to see the target move before it becomes visible to shoot?

 

Not important, just curious, can not remember ever seeing that scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

What are the circumstances that allow you to see the target move before it becomes visible to shoot?

 

Not important, just curious, can not remember ever seeing that scenario. 

 

You can see the weight end (most common), you can see it behind a mesh wall/protective no-shoots, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2020 at 9:10 AM, ChuckS said:

Just to be clear, 55-70 yard targets are not "practical" for a rifle?

 

In terms of distance, I'd say the fact that we're talking about a pistol round is more relevant than the fact that it was shot through a rifle.  Add to that the fact that most, if not all, are shooting minor PF, and it's even less like a rifle.  I'd say chances of hitting the thing with an open gun/38S are greater than with a PCC and minor PF 9mm.  Also, the fact that maybe a couple of people out of the whole bunch (including the top shooters) hit the thing would suggest it's marginal at best in terms of being "practical."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ltdmstr said:

 

In terms of distance, I'd say the fact that we're talking about a pistol round is more relevant than the fact that it was shot through a rifle.  Add to that the fact that most, if not all, are shooting minor PF, and it's even less like a rifle.  I'd say chances of hitting the thing with an open gun/38S are greater than with a PCC and minor PF 9mm.  Also, the fact that maybe a couple of people out of the whole bunch (including the top shooters) hit the thing would suggest it's marginal at best in terms of being "practical."

I shoot a 121 gr 9mm at ~1400 fps in pistol and 115 gr ~1200 fps in rifle (8" barrel) and I am absofrigginglutely sure what works better for distance. 3-point contact with the firearm for the win.  So yeah, rifle better than pistol.

 

As for this stage, a tough one for sure. But then, this was the nationals, right? And if one paid attention to any of the PCC only matches over the years, one would expect at least some shots well beyond the typical pistol presentation. Of the top 10 shooters on this stage (which included Gs, Ms, and one sandbagging junior C shooter 😉 ) only 2 had misses. Max had 2 but if you watch his video, he likely traded points for time on that target. He was about 1.7 seconds faster than the stage winner.

 

Should a whole match be like this stage? Not for USPSA. One target on one stage? Deal with it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shannon should have used all half sized targets, after all, those were rifles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

I shoot a 121 gr 9mm at ~1400 fps in pistol and 115 gr ~1200 fps in rifle (8" barrel) and I am absofrigginglutely sure what works better for distance. 3-point contact with the firearm for the win.  So yeah, rifle better than pistol.

 

As for this stage, a tough one for sure. But then, this was the nationals, right? And if one paid attention to any of the PCC only matches over the years, one would expect at least some shots well beyond the typical pistol presentation. Of the top 10 shooters on this stage (which included Gs, Ms, and one sandbagging junior C shooter 😉 ) only 2 had misses. Max had 2 but if you watch his video, he likely traded points for time on that target. He was about 1.7 seconds faster than the stage winner.

 

Should a whole match be like this stage? Not for USPSA. One target on one stage? Deal with it.

 

 

 

Yeah, I can deal with it.  Stated in my prior post I didn't have a problem with the stage.  Was just questioning whether it was really practical.  I don't think everyone's going to agree on what that even means.  But this kinda reminds me of the timed 50 yard standards at the single stack nationals.  Probably only a handful even managed 5 hits on all three targets.  But if it's your match and that's how you want to run it, fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, outerlimits said:

shannon should have used all half sized targets, after all, those were rifles!

He probably would of used some if the rules allowed it! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, outerlimits said:

shannon should have used all half sized targets, after all, those were rifles!

 

Don't tempt him, he loves to use Classic targets cut in half as rifle targets for his local 3 gun matches.

 

I didn't shoot PCC Nationals but I would've much preferred a 52yd swinger over the 2 450yd paper targets we had to shoot at MG Nationals the weekend before.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2020 at 7:32 AM, ampleworks said:

  Con:

  • Use of barrels as hardcover in some places while having steel elsewhere.
    • I argued a mike on a swinger over this and still felt I got hosed but it was last stage and I was about to fall over so I didn't request the RM

 

that stuff drives me crazy, especially if the RO's aren't diligent about painting/taping/repairing any hardcover hits. I CRO'd a stage at A1 a couple years back that had 3 swingers, with tires on barrels used as hardcover. Never again. We painted the tires, but it was still time-consumingto find the actual holes in the tires that we were calling hardcover hits. If I couldn't find the actual hole, I didn't call it, and the shooter got credit for a wonkey looking hole that might have deflected off the edge of something. If I could find the actual hole and show it to the shooter, I got no argument about the call. Barrels are better because using contrasting paint will make any new holes or grazes show up pretty obviously, but if you're not checking and painting as required between every shooter, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in calling a hard-cover hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

that stuff drives me crazy, especially if the RO's aren't diligent about painting/taping/repairing any hardcover hits. I CRO'd a stage at A1 a couple years back that had 3 swingers, with tires on barrels used as hardcover. Never again. We painted the tires, but it was still time-consumingto find the actual holes in the tires that we were calling hardcover hits. If I couldn't find the actual hole, I didn't call it, and the shooter got credit for a wonkey looking hole that might have deflected off the edge of something. If I could find the actual hole and show it to the shooter, I got no argument about the call. Barrels are better because using contrasting paint will make any new holes or grazes show up pretty obviously, but if you're not checking and painting as required between every shooter, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in calling a hard-cover hit.

this is actually one of the rule sets I wish we could change, I would love to be able to have soft cover be more liberally allowed in the rules.

 

My personal desire would be to use the IDPA rules for target penetrability (basically targets on separate stick are soft cover and stacked targets are score the exposed faces) and be able to declare certain props as soft cover regardless of the target presentation they are protecting as long as they are available somewhere in the stage. 

 

So have a swinger you want to protect? put a barrel with a no shoot in front of it, declare the barrel soft cover, score the swinger and any hits on the no shoot, done, don't have to paint the barrel don't have to worry about did this bullet make a full dia hole in the barrel or no shoot etc, scores and resets quickly and everyone gets a accurate score.  Have a down range wall with a partial target behind it you know is going to get shot? stick a barrel stack at the end and declare them soft cover, score the targets and move on, no having to constantly repair the wall no divining what hole in the barrel lines up with the wonky hole in the target just score and move on. 

 

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2020 at 8:25 AM, motosapiens said:

 

that stuff drives me crazy, especially if the RO's aren't diligent about painting/taping/repairing any hardcover hits. I CRO'd a stage at A1 a couple years back that had 3 swingers, with tires on barrels used as hardcover. Never again. We painted the tires, but it was still time-consumingto find the actual holes in the tires that we were calling hardcover hits. If I couldn't find the actual hole, I didn't call it, and the shooter got credit for a wonkey looking hole that might have deflected off the edge of something. If I could find the actual hole and show it to the shooter, I got no argument about the call. Barrels are better because using contrasting paint will make any new holes or grazes show up pretty obviously, but if you're not checking and painting as required between every shooter, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in calling a hard-cover hit.


If you want to determine something as hardcover, it should be (1) impenetrable, such as steel or (2) a flat surface such as plywood or a cardboard target. I don't understand how anyone can determine whether a shot was full diameter or not if you can't even use an overlay on it.


I also had two stages where ROs that were condescending when asking for an overlay for a perf shot. I don't trust anyone's eyes to be within 1/32" of accurate when reading a perf shot, two of which my mikes were within easily within that tolerance. I understand the idea of split scoring and why it's used but I really wonder how many shooters end up with an inaccurate score because of this. Not every shooter comes with someone else and they shouldn't be forced to rely on a delegate that may not even be a RO to verify hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ampleworks said:


If you want to determine something as hardcover, it should be (1) impenetrable, such as steel or (2) a flat surface such as plywood or a cardboard target. I don't understand how anyone can determine whether a shot was full diameter or not if you can't even use an overlay on it.

 

it's pretty easy with a barrel to tell if it's a full diameter hit or not. there will be hole, as opposed to a scratch.

 

I avoid split scoring at big matches. If we use it at all (like for the first two targets way uprange), I call out the hits to the shooter right after ULSC and give him the opportunity to look if desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ampleworks said:


If you want to determine something as hardcover, it should be (1) impenetrable, such as steel or (2) a flat surface such as plywood or a cardboard target. I don't understand how anyone can determine whether a shot was full diameter or not if you can't even use an overlay on it.


I also had two stages where ROs that were condescending when asking for an overlay for a perf shot. I don't trust anyone's eyes to be within 1/32" of accurate when reading a perf shot, two of which my mikes were within easily within that tolerance. I understand the idea of split scoring and why it's used but I really wonder how many shooters end up with an inaccurate score because of this. Not every shooter comes with someone else and they shouldn't be forced to rely on a delegate that may not even be a RO to verify hits.

I've used split scoring at many matches, every time the procedure has been score easy and clear hits anything else guard the targets and wait for the RO and shooter to come score the targets.

Personally I have never seen the case where a miss or questionable hit was scored and tapped without the shooter being given the opportunity to look for themselves, regardless of the have a delegate speech in the WSB, I'm sure it happens but I have not seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...