NROI article: Why no love for Single Stack major?

[PatJones]

I just read https://nroi.org/stage-design/why-no-love-for-single-stack-major/. Perhaps the article should be titled “Why no love for Single Stack Minor”.

 

It seems to me Jay Worden is a little too worried about minor caliber Single Stack guns. Single stack is the only division where both major and minor can compete on an even playing field. Major may hold an advantage at the upper levels of Single Stack Division, but in the middle where most of us shooters reside, it’s a wash. I believe that intentionally designing matches that put Single Stack minor at a complete disadvantage is unethical.

 

Why would anyone care that an increasing number of shooters are choosing minor over major? Minor is cheaper to shoot. The reduced recoil is a plus for Juniors, Seniors and some Lady competitors. As my hands start to age, I’ve considered a move to minor myself.

 

Why is it OK to influence the outcome of any USPSA event by intentionally favoring one gun over another? When you don't allow a minor caliber Single Stack to use their 2 extra rounds anywhere in a stage, that same stage puts major caliber revolvers at a huge disadvantage. Jay’s Low-Cap Nationals in PASA Park hastened the decline of the 6 shot revolver in USPSA. There were lots of shooting positions that forced a major caliber revolver to shoot 6, reload and shoot one with nowhere to use the remaining rounds in the gun. This was OK at Revolver Nationals?

 

While I can agree with Mr. Worden that 8 shots in every position is generally poor stage design, following his recommendation of 7 shots in each position is no better. A USPSA match should provide interesting shooting challenges without intentionally favoring one gun over another. I hope we never see another USPSA Nationals like the Single Stack Classic at PASA Park.

Edited June 25, 2021 by PatJones

[MemphisMechanic]

People shoot minor primarily because most matches have several stages that suck a little bit for 10 round guns, but suck a lot for 8 round guns.

 

They’d happliy take Major 10 over Minor 10, but since that is not an option? The decision to choose capacity over power factor is made due to poor stage design factors alone. Ammo cost and felt recoil aren’t really factors in the decision, they’re just secondary benefits. The stages they encounter will almost always be won by a 10+1 gun, so that’s what they shoot.

Personally I find I wind up building really good stages if I have just 4-6 required shots in each position. The remaining targets which might cause you to fire 8 to 12 shots when you arrive somewhere? They’re positioned so they are available from several positions, or on the move, etc.

 

These generally tend to be fun stages to break down, every division is pretty happy… and you get to see all of the top guys running different plans.
 

Edited June 25, 2021 by MemphisMechanic

[ima45dv8]

Options!

That's the key to a good stage for me.

[Nathanb]

I like how he calls it a glaring issue. He’s not worried about dying divisions but single stack minor is a step too far in fuddlandia

[waktasz]

No one shoots single stack at all so the whole premise is irrelevant. 

[louu]

SS major use to be a decent sized division around here but once PCC came along stage design changed dramatically and now pretty much every stage is the same. If you have 8 round capacity you will do a standing reload on more than half of the stages. I feel terrible talking s#!t on the stage designers out here because I never make any but at least I'm always (usually) early and help build. PCC is finally dying out here but the stages remain the same. I remember when I first started years ago you had so much movement and low round counts at a lot of positions. Now it's just stand here and shoot 10 rounds, then stand over there and shoot 10 rounds. Yeah I know it's supposed to be 8 

[louu]

I also hope they don't f*#k with SS, I'm planning on shooting it again in a couple of years when I get bored with limited 

[Racinready300ex]

If minor in SS is causing a "glaring issue" why not just make it a major only division. Problem solved. 

 

Or just nuke it, let the SS major shooters move to L10 and the minor shooters can go buy prod guns. Every body wins. 

[louu]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

If minor in SS is causing a "glaring issue" why not just make it a major only division. Problem solved. 

 

Or just nuke it, let the SS major shooters move to L10 and the minor shooters can go buy prod guns. Every body wins. 

What took you so long? 

[BritinUSA]

I think Stage Design - especially at L1 matches - needs to be addressed. It appears to me that the drive for higher capacity divisions is being driven by poor stage design.

 

IPSC has it right with their ratio of stages.

 

Maybe it’s time for USPSA HQ to weigh in, though I doubt they will as it may hurt their attendance/revenue.

[zzt]

I have no idea why threads like this, or similar, arise so often.  Just chill.  The really good SS guys have both and decide which one to shoot depending on the various stage designs.  Every one else I see shooting SS either loves 45s, or it is the only gun they own that is USPSA competitive.

 

As far as stage design goes, quit whining.  Design a few challenging ones yourself, then show up at 8 AM on setup days and help build them.  The days of Open shooters being able to stand in one spot and hose everything is long gone.  Today stages ae technical with lots of movement and several way to approach them.  I'll also note the clubs that have the best stages are those with serious shooters who actually help out.

 

One club I shoot USPSA and SCSA at  used to be know for their hose fests.  Stage designs were pretty much the same as the month before, and boring.  One time not enough help showed up to set the stages, so the MD cancelled the match at 9:30 AM the morning of.  Now they have a lot more help, and better stage designs.  I'm staff at that match, but cannot get there before 9 AM.  The target stands are already out with targets stapled and placed in the approximate positions shown on the drawings.  Wall are up and boundaries are down, but nothing is staked.  The RM goes through each stage one by one.  We move the targets or anything else to exactly where he wants them, then we stake everything down.  Everyone on the squad helps tear down and stow the stage they finished on.  Same with the other three clubs I routinely shoot at.  The only club I don't help set up USPSA shoots is one that is far away.  They set up the day before and I can't stand making that commute two days in a row.

 

As far as stage design driving capacity, I don't think so.  CO is so popular because you stage plan like Limited and shoot like Open.  If I already did not have three very expensive custom Open guns, I'd shoot CO.  If I could still see sights, I'd still be shooting Limited.  Production never appealed to me because I hate plastic guns.  Now you can get some really nice Production legal guns.  BTW, I shot a match this year with 10-round mags.  It was no hardship at all.  So the notion stage design drives capacity is not the case.  With the new rules, people switched to CO because it is so much fun.  Think of it as poor man's Open without a big stick.

[Schutzenmeister]

5 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

I think Stage Design - especially at L1 matches - needs to be addressed. It appears to me that the drive for higher capacity divisions is being driven by poor stage design.

 

IPSC has it right with their ratio of stages.

 

Maybe it’s time for USPSA HQ to weigh in, though I doubt they will as it may hurt their attendance/revenue.

 

The other thing IPSC did right, about 10-12 years ago, was to eliminate the silly restrictions of no more than 2 locations for short courses and 3 for medium courses.  That really opened up the ability to make these courses more interesting.

 

I wish USPSA would consider the same!

[waktasz]

that's a good point. Write your AD

 

[Schutzenmeister]

37 minutes ago, waktasz said:

that's a good point. Write your AD

 

 

I've mentioned this in person to at least 4 ADs, the Pres, and the DNROI.  As virtually everyone designs and shoots long courses I don't think there's much interest in improving short and medium courses.

[Southpaw]

59 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

The other thing IPSC did right, about 10-12 years ago, was to eliminate the silly restrictions of no more than 2 locations for short courses and 3 for medium courses.  That really opened up the ability to make these courses more interesting.

 

I wish USPSA would consider the same!

 

So just design "long courses" with fewer rounds. There's no minimum round count for long courses in rule book

[ChuckS]

<  >

If you read rules section 1.2.1 you will see that the type of COFs is determined by the maximum number of shots. There is no minimum. There is nothing is that section that would prohibit, for example, an 8 round long course.

</ >

 

but, yeah, the rules should be changed.

 

[KenK]

My $0.20 ( inflation ) After the first 6 rounds in SS a mandatory reload, after the reload No restrictions on magazine capacity or size.

KenK

[zzt]

20 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

As virtually everyone designs and shoots long courses I don't think there's much interest in improving short and medium courses.

 

Not anymore.  It used to be that the local clubs that could only offer 5 or 6 stages would go long.  They were interesting, because you had to run a lot and there were many firing positions.  Now, with the ammo shortage, the are getting shorter.  Typical now is 18 to 24, and they are getting diabolical with the design.  For instance, at the last match there was a 20 round stage with 5 firing positions.  You had to run to one side of the bay, engage two targets, run 20 yards to the other side of the bay and engage two more.  Then run to the high port and engage two, then run to the far wall to engage the steel and the swinger.  On the way you had to stop for a moment to engage one target through a gap in the walls.  I only see short courses if there is a speed shoot set up in the same bay as a Classifier.  In the last three matches the longest stage was 28 rounds.

 

I like it.

[Bakerjd]

Honestly I didnt aee any point to the entire story. I've shot both for about 2 years now. I find either one will have you doing a standing reload at most locals on at least one stage, or an awkward position just to not reload while standing. 

 

Getting rid of SS and forcing everyone to go with L10 or Production is also a dumb idea, yet here we are once again. If you dont shoot the division then why do you care or have an opinion on what should be done with that division? 

 

 

[Jeff226]

As long as we try to pretend major and minor in the same division adds value, we will continue to have these problems.

 

On 6/25/2021 at 9:45 AM, waktasz said:

No one shoots single stack at all so the whole premise is irrelevant. 

 

Probably best answer ^^

[motosapiens]

On 6/25/2021 at 1:16 PM, zzt said:

I have no idea why threads like this, or similar, arise so often.  Just chill.  The really good SS guys have both and decide which one to shoot depending on the various stage designs. 

 

the really good ss guys have both, but pretty much ONLY shoot major at big matches, and save minor for steel challenge, or dinking around. When I was still an A, I thought minor was an advantage in some matches. Then I got better at reloading, and better at not missing steel, and stopped shooting ss minor (but I still got beat at nats by 3 little girls shooting minor, lol).

 

I haven't read the article yet, so maybe I shouldn't comment, but the OP's comments make alot of sense to me. It's fine the way it is, all the big boys shoot major even if it *seems* like the stages might favor minor (and they still beat all the minor shooters), and having minor as an option is a) a good excuse to buy more 1911's, and b) a valid option for little girls, sissies, people with bad arthritis, etc.....

[MikeBurgess]

On 6/25/2021 at 4:52 PM, Schutzenmeister said:

 

The other thing IPSC did right, about 10-12 years ago, was to eliminate the silly restrictions of no more than 2 locations for short courses and 3 for medium courses.  That really opened up the ability to make these courses more interesting.

 

I wish USPSA would consider the same!

with USPSA not having a 3,2,1 requirement what difference does this make? Seriously there is nothing in the rules prohibiting a 6 round long course or a all long course match, honestly without the IPSC 3,2,1 requirement we should remove the short and medium designations.

[Schutzenmeister]

2 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

with USPSA not having a 3,2,1 requirement what difference does this make? Seriously there is nothing in the rules prohibiting a 6 round long course or a all long course match, honestly without the IPSC 3,2,1 requirement we should remove the short and medium designations.

 

I've made that exact argument as well ...

[Bakerjd]

3 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

with USPSA not having a 3,2,1 requirement what difference does this make? Seriously there is nothing in the rules prohibiting a 6 round long course or a all long course match, honestly without the IPSC 3,2,1 requirement we should remove the short and medium designations.

Agreed.

[MikeBurgess]

2 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

I've made that exact argument as well ...

there seems to be a fair bit of resistance to making logical changes that clean up the rules and more momentum to make changes that make things more complicated.