Steel Challenge - Would SCSA Benefit From Adding Two New Official Stages - POLL

[Hoops]

Before injuries and when I was playing golf, most of my rounds were at my local club.  But on occasion our group would play other courses for the change and to "test" our handicap.  It was fun ....and challenging....to mix it up once in a while.  

 

I'm wondering if Steel Challenge would benefit by adding two more classfiers (to 10) and design the two new stages to fit most local ranges?  Many ranges can't handle Outer Limits and Speed Option which, in my option, hurts the shooter in the long run and having an additional two stages would offer more options.  Would two more classifiers be a draw for new shooters?

 

Just a thought.  

 

 

[GOF]

I doubt if adding two more stages would draw more new shooters. My 15 year experience has been that new shooters don't know/understand the existing 8 stages that we have. With that said however, I could see where two new shorter... more compact... stages could assist clubs with a smaller range capacity. That might increase participation at the Tier 1 level, although I'm not sure if that would be any kind of a draw for 'new shooters'. 

The ranges I shoot at have room for the existing 8 stages, but quite frankly, this Super Senior would prefer to see much less of Outer Limits (LOL) but even that wouldn't change the Classifications. Those dadgum 20 somethings would still get in there and mess up the peak times for us  "Mature" shooters.

 

Hmmm? Wonder if a new Peak Classifier array could be established for the Super Seniors? They could call it the 'Old Farts' division. I'd be up for it. Every time I get close to MA those damned kids come in and mess it up .

[AR_James]

I do not see any benefit in adding additional classifiers.  Tier 1 matches already have the option of setting up non-official stages.  So, if a club wants to do something to mix it up they already have that option.  

[Hoops]

Thanks for your comments.  Hopefully others will join in on the comments too.

 

Below is link that is at the top of Steel Challenge section.  There are some interesting stages that would fit or could fit smaller bays.  I have not been in the sport long enough to know if/when/why any previous stages were dropped......if they were.  Do any of you Enos folks know if this was the case and why?

 

From my experience where I shoot, most folks who show up want to shoot a SC match aren't too excited to find an Outlaw stage mixed in.  

 

https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/72535-more-steel-challenge-stages/

 

[zzt]

I definitely would like to see a couple shorter, more compact stages added.  Several of the 15 yard max distance diagrams of Shred's would be ideal.   My personal limit is four real classifiers for a match.  Any less than that and it is not worth it for me.  The club I shot at today had space for four Classifiers and two outlaw stages.  They have room for 103, 105, 107 and 108.  Any of Shred's shorter courses would have fit it the two outlaw bays.  They would be gung ho to offer six official classifiers.  Another club only can fit two existing classifiers with four outlaws.  I don't shoot there.  

 

While I'm thinking about it, there is no reason to limit the extras to two.

[Hoops]

10 hours ago, zzt said:

I definitely would like to see a couple shorter, more compact stages added.  Several of the 15 yard max distance diagrams of Shred's would be ideal.   My personal limit is four real classifiers for a match.  Any less than that and it is not worth it for me.  The club I shot at today had space for four Classifiers and two outlaw stages.  They have room for 103, 105, 107 and 108.  Any of Shred's shorter courses would have fit it the two outlaw bays.  They would be gung ho to offer six official classifiers.  Another club only can fit two existing classifiers with four outlaws.  I don't shoot there.  

 

While I'm thinking about it, there is no reason to limit the extras to two.

When I was shooting at Area 4 last week, this came up several times.  The consensus was adding a couple of new tighter classifiers would be positive for the sport.  The new stages would use the same type of 5 plates so the MD's could still utilize their plate inventory.....just a new configuration.   I am not a USPSA shooter but that sport has a ton of classifiers........I wonder why there are so many in that sport?

 

I notice a lot of people have read this post.  I hope we get more comments....pro or con.

[Gregg K]

I see some stages that are posted that look interesting and fun. The problem with many of the ones posted is the different heights for the targets. The different heights are a problem due to inventory of 2x4's plus I see a lot of them that are short so that any misses would strike the bay floor and skip out of the range on hard packed ranges.

 

I don't think additional stages would bring in any new shooters, it may satisfy the Outer Limits haters but as stated above, the young guns will burn down anything put up.

[rowdyb]

I would rather see those two stages be given a  smaller option in dimension to fit an "average" bay. Then you could have Outer Limits.2 and Speed Option.2.

I refuse to shoot steel challenge matches with outlaw stages in them, even if it is just one.

I would say if your bays don't fit those stage then no biggie, just get good at the ones you can shoot. But my idea would still keep those stages extant and keep people's current stage knowledge relevant.

[Hoops]

The link that I pulled from the Steel Challenge forum were just examples.  Any new classifier should be 5 targets and follow same height requirements for round's and gongs.  Younger, exceptional shooters will always be faster but represent less than 10% (probably less than 5%) of the overall shooters who reguarly shoot SCSA matches. 

 

My guess is most 50 something's, Seniors and Super Seniors (a growing percentage of SCSA shooters) who shoot SCSA reguarly, would support the idea of adding 2 classifiers that would fit most local range bays.  Being an old fart super senior myself who is still "mentally" and somewhat physically competitive, I personnally do believe 2 new classifiers would be a positive addition to SCSA......especially for clubs that can't fit OL or SO.  But this could just be me and not the concensus of shooters.  

 

If you are reading this post, jump in with comments.  Pros and Cons are encouraged.  

 

 

 

[zzt]

I think scaling down the two long stages is not feasible, because you would not be able to use existing plates.  I'd much rather see two or more new stages specifically designed to fit in 15 and 25 yard bays.  Perhaps a third for really narrow 25 yard pits.  I'd MUCH rather shoot a match with 5 or 6 real Classifiers and no outlaw stages.

[mchapman]

 

4 hours ago, zzt said:

I think scaling down the two long stages is not feasible, because you would not be able to use existing plates.

I am curious as to why you couldn't use the existing plates? The plates used are the same size and dimensions as what is used in the other stages of steel challenge, to scale down the plates would just be at different distances, closer to the shooter, than in the full sized versions. Just make sure that everything is still at safe shooting distances away for the shooter.

[Hoops]

30 minutes ago, mchapman said:

 

I am curious as to why you couldn't use the existing plates? The plates used are the same size and dimensions as what is used in the other stages of steel challenge, to scale down the plates would just be at different distances, closer to the shooter, than in the full sized versions. Just make sure that everything is still at safe shooting distances away for the shooter.

Use the same 10", 12" and 18x24" gongs.  I personnally have a full set for 8 stages of AR500 plates,  head brackets and stands.  Roundabout is 12" plates at 21' and is fine.   Smoke and Hope at 21' for the 18"x24" is fine.  Boards (or metal) posts would also need to be same height that the current 7 stages are.  Much easier for storage, set-up and tear down.  I would not recommend different size plates or different height of posts.

 

With some creative designs, there could easily be two more classifiers that would use the same inventory used for 5-6 bay matches and should not place an additional cost burden on MD's.  

 

The way I see it is that there a numerous folks with classifications from only 4 to 6 stages due to local range size restrictions.  At least the addition of two classifiers would give many folks a chance to expand thier classification with two additional options.  That seems to be a positive to me.

 

 

[mchapman]

I have all 8 stages at my range and they are all set with a laser, so it really isn't a problem for me, I would like to see a few new stages added just for variation.

[Hoops]

1 hour ago, mchapman said:

I have all 8 stages at my range and they are all set with a laser, so it really isn't a problem for me, I would like to see a few new stages added just for variation.

I would love to shoot at your range.........just a bit to far.....sadly.

 

But I find your comments very interesting.  You have all 8 stages yet you would be in favor of new stages for variation.  Can you imagine if you had only 5 bays and none of them would handle OL or SO?

 

 

[Cfish]

Having 2 additional smaller stages available as classifiers would allow clubs with smaller bays to hold matches higher than a level 1.

[cferree]

For starters, they're not classifiers, they're stages.  Yes our classification is based on them, but they are THE stages.  As for adding stages, I don't see the need.  I'm lucky enough to have clubs close by that that shoot 5-6 stages per month, and all but one can set up OL and SO.  Most learnt long time ago that outlaw stages cost them shooters.

If you want diversity, shoot RCSA (formally NSSF).  

 

[shred]

I had 3 scaled gongs made up that are the same MOA at 25 yards as the regulation gongs are at 35 to shoot Speed Option and Outer Limits on a 25 yard bay.

 

I put it all into CAD and you can get a perfect match for Speed Option and a 25-for-35 plate, but there's no way to get perfect alignment on OL due to the movement.  It's close, but not perfect.  Everything else is the regular plates.

 

USPSA could easily get those two 'reduced' stages and make them alternates for small ranges.  Bonus is the 25-for-35 gongs are a lot easier to tote around.

 

 

[Hoops]

8 hours ago, cferree said:

For starters, they're not classifiers, they're stages.  Yes our classification is based on them, but they are THE stages.  As for adding stages, I don't see the need.  I'm lucky enough to have clubs close by that that shoot 5-6 stages per month, and all but one can set up OL and SO.  Most learnt long time ago that outlaw stages cost them shooters.

If you want diversity, shoot RCSA (formally NSSF).  

 

I think most folks in this post are using the term classifier just for added emphasis between an official stage vs some other non-offical stage.  SCSA does the same in the following Rule Book section:

 

2.3  Stage Diagrams

 

Diagrams for the official SCSA classifier stages can be found in Appendix B of this rulebook.

 

Just for clarity, my initial thought when starting this topic was about adding two stages that would be official SCSA classifier stages that would be assigned SC-109 and SC-110.

 

So far we have had good responses relative to yea and nays for adding two stages.  

[Hoops]

8 hours ago, shred said:

I had 3 special scaled gongs made up that are the same MOA at 25 yards as the regulation gongs are at 35 to shoot Speed Option and Outer Limits on a 25 yard bay.

 

I put it all into CAD and you can get a perfect match for Speed Option and a 25-for-35 plate, but there's no way to get perfect alignment on OL due to the movement.  It's close, but not perfect.  Everything else is the regular plates.

 

USPSA could easily get those two 'reduced' stages and make them alternates for small ranges.  Bonus is the 25-for-35 gongs are a lot easier to tote around.

 

 

Shred, have you noticed if the times on the reduced targets at 25 yards are comparable to the full size version?  Would the reduced target option carry the current Peak time?  

[shred]

I haven't had enough shooters shoot them both to do a good comparison.  I think they are equivalent for me within the margin of error on any given day, but an extra 30 feet downrange does change the 'look' and maybe how some people's eyes focus and index.  You also get a slightly faster 'dink' coming back if that matters, although it shouldn't for top times now that nobody uses impact stop plates.

 

If USPSA wanted to try it, they could invest the $200 or so in shipping a set to Grant and a few other top shooters. 

 

I'd suggest making them a "level 1 only" kind of thing at least until more data is gathered.

 

 

 

[Darqusoull13]

6 minutes ago, shred said:

I haven't had enough shooters shoot them both to do a good comparison.  I think they are equivalent for me within the margin of error on any given day, but an extra 30 feet downrange does change the 'look' and maybe how some people's eyes focus and index.  You also get a slightly faster 'dink' coming back if that matters, although it shouldn't for top times now that nobody uses impact stop plates.

 

If USPSA wanted to try it, they could invest the $200 or so in shipping a set to Grant and a few other top shooters. 

 

I'd suggest making them a "level 1 only" kind of thing at least until more data is gathered.

 

 

 

Objectively I would want these to be level 1 only and not count for classification. The focal depth difference is significant, especially for the aging crowd. There is also a significant difference between the impact sound coming back on the shorter plates with 22's and super-sub-minor 9mm SCSA loads. Looking at the lower classifications where shooters do wait for the sound feedback I can't say it's an equal test. 

I wouldn't mind trying out new stages. However, I'd like that done very slowly. Perhaps submit a stage and allow it to be shot for a year or two encouraging feedback from clubs and shooters about the stage. 

[Hoops]

I believe that the majority of comments have been in favor of adding new stages.......slowly and otherwise expressed.  I personnaly do not have any connections with USPSA/SCSA to float the idea.

 

My guess is that if 4 potential stages were to be submitted and from that 2 selected, there would be plenty of clubs that would want to run beta testing.

 

So......if there are people reading this topic with USPSA/SCSA connections that are in favor of design development and beta testing.......how would this proceed?

[Hoops]

I would add..........focus being on fitting new stage(s) into a relative standard sized bay to offer more options to clubs/ranges that are size restricted to run OL and SO.

 

 

[Chills1994]

Make the Texas Tree great again!

 

Gas’er up, buttercup!

 

Kick the tire, light the fire!

 

Grip it and rip if!

 

p

 

 

[Chills1994]

Whoops, disregard the 2nd pic!  I have no idea how that got there.