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

[zzt]

On 8/2/2021 at 3:12 PM, 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.

 

When you scale a stage smaller you are moving each target closer to the shooting box while maintaining the correct angle.  If you leave the steel the original size there is much easier to hit.  So you have to scale down the steel as well.  Since SCSA only uses 10", 12" and 18x24" plates, you would have to buy smaller plates to keep the difficulty the same.  Hitting an 18x24 plate at 20 yards is much easier than at 35.

 

I'd rather there be two or more new stages that used existing rules and plates.

[Hoops]

My initial thought about two additional official stages was to come up with new designs that would fit within a 25' to 30" wide x 60' to 65' long bays.  Idea was to (1) add new designs for variety and (2) give many 5-6 bay ranges with size limits an additional two stages to work with.  

 

After thinking about it, I would not recommend scaled down SO or OL since it would not be something visually different.  I would think that the new designs would lean towards 9.00 to 9.50 RFRO peak times since we already have several at 7.00.  Perhaps new tighter stages would utilize a few more 10" plates.  

 

If USPSA/SCSA would consider and offer beta testing two additional stages and subsequently add them to the offical list, I would also think that classifications would require shooting 6 stages instead of 4.

 

Since many more people have viewed this post than have commented, I wonder if this topic should should be CLOSED and I should start a new topic on the subject but in POLL form?  Perhaps this would pull more participation?  Thoughts?

[shred]

Steel Challenge stages changed throughout the years as the Mikes added and deleted them.  This century Accelerator was added and Flying M was replaced by Pendulum.   Prior to that all kinds of stages like Double Trouble and Zig Zag and such were used.  There's dozens to hundreds of already designed and tested steel stages out there that could easily be adopted if somebody had the motivation to do so.

 

The only reason to make reduced-plates versions of the existing stages is so people that rarely shoot them due to range limitations can get recent times on them for classification.  I had a guy ask me the other night where he could find a club shooting (and sending in) Speed Option since the one on his record was old and was holding back his classification.

 

[Hoops]

9 hours ago, shred said:

Steel Challenge stages changed throughout the years as the Mikes added and deleted them.  This century Accelerator was added and Flying M was replaced by Pendulum.   Prior to that all kinds of stages like Double Trouble and Zig Zag and such were used.  There's dozens to hundreds of already designed and tested steel stages out there that could easily be adopted if somebody had the motivation to do so.

 

The only reason to make reduced-plates versions of the existing stages is so people that rarely shoot them due to range limitations can get recent times on them for classification.  I had a guy ask me the other night where he could find a club shooting (and sending in) Speed Option since the one on his record was old and was holding back his classification.

 

I am not familiar how one would go about initiating discussion with USPSA/SCSA regarding 2 additional official stages.  I was scrolling thru your link of steel stages and there are a couple of good ones there that would be good for the smaller, tighter bay thinking.  I will reach out to SCSA and see where it goes.

 

Regarding the question you had about local area matches.........There is a SCSA official stages match the 2nd Saturday at Cedar Ridge Gun Range near Bulverde, TX that alternates Speed Option and Outer Limits in their "big bay".  Last year there were several new bays added in the back section of the property for matches.  Scores are uploaded to SCSA.  Good steel, AMG timers sync'd to tables.  Canopy covers for every stage.  Good match.

 

 

[PractricalUse]

Personally, I would like to see 2 or more (8?) new additional stages.  I love steel challenge.  If it stays as is, fine, I won't love it any less.  That being said, I like variety, which is why I like outlaw matches as well.  For me the perfect local match is 3 official stages and two outlaw stages - again, for the variety and change of pace.  I personally just think a few more additional stages, particularly scaled for smaller ranges, would be a nice addition for both smaller ranges and variety.

[shred]

3 hours ago, Hoops said:

 

Regarding the question you had about local area matches.........There is a SCSA official stages match the 2nd Saturday at Cedar Ridge Gun Range near Bulverde, TX that alternates Speed Option and Outer Limits in their "big bay". 

 

Yeah, I suggested that to him as well as a couple others, but if there's not a match relatively close, a stale score could remain for a long time, so that's something USPSA should address as well if stages are rarely shot by a person.

 

Personally I like the Foote Loose stage a lot, but it is more complicated for the infirm and entry-level shooters that are a big target of SCSA.

 

For widespread use, a new stage would have to be not more than ~20 yards deep and avoid plates low to the ground (which kicks out zig-zag, another good outlaw stage).  Based on the amount of grousing and wasted ammo Pendulum generates at local matches, it should probably be somewhat less difficult than that.

 

 

[Hoops]

Under another topic, there was a discussion on the whether or not SCSA matches would benefit by adding two (or more) Official Stages that would fit within smaller/standard sized bays.  Many ranges can't fit Official Outer Limits and Speed Option.   If the majority of the POLL results is Yes, then SCSA will be contacted.  No user dentification will be assigned by yes or no.  

[Hoops]

Sorry for the duplication.  I kept getting error messages to type in question/subject.

[Hoops]

3 hours ago, shred said:

Yeah, I suggested that to him as well as a couple others, but if there's not a match relatively close, a stale score could remain for a long time, so that's something USPSA should address as well if stages are rarely shot by a person.

 

Personally I like the Foote Loose stage a lot, but it is more complicated for the infirm and entry-level shooters that are a big target of SCSA.

 

For widespread use, a new stage would have to be not more than ~20 yards deep and avoid plates low to the ground (which kicks out zig-zag, another good outlaw stage).  Based on the amount of grousing and wasted ammo Pendulum generates at local matches, it should probably be somewhat less difficult than that.

 

 

Shred, as moderator, can you close this topic?  I have started another similar topic that includes a POLL.

 

Thanks

[ChuckS]

1 hour ago, Hoops said:

Shred, as moderator, can you close this topic?  I have started another similar topic that includes a POLL.

 

Thanks

Threads merged

 

[Hoops]

Polling has started.  If you are a regular SCSA shooter, I hope you participate in this poll.

 

 

[AzShooter]

I would lose no sweat if Outer Limits was replaced at our local matches.  As a handicap shooter I take a lot of time moving between the boxes safely.  When I was in my wheelchair I shot everything from the center box and took the 4 second penalty for each run.  My times are slower now that I'm moving.

 

The biggest problem is real estate.  It would be easier to find a bay more suited for a stage that doesn't require 35 yards and isn't as spread out of OL.  

 

Whatever, design the stages, set it up and I'll  shoot it.  After 30+ years I'm still enjoying the hell out of SCSA and think it's a great way to bring more shooters into the fold.  I'm lending my back-up gun to a new shooter for this week's match.  She wanted to know what .22 she needed to buy and I said borrow what you can and see what fits your needs.  The SCSA community has been very good over the years to new shooters and it's easy to get them involved right away with the clock, scoreboard and paint.  If you start them right they will be an asset to the group.

 

[Hoops]

9 hours ago, AzShooter said:

I would lose no sweat if Outer Limits was replaced at our local matches.  As a handicap shooter I take a lot of time moving between the boxes safely.  When I was in my wheelchair I shot everything from the center box and took the 4 second penalty for each run.  My times are slower now that I'm moving.

 

The biggest problem is real estate.  It would be easier to find a bay more suited for a stage that doesn't require 35 yards and isn't as spread out of OL.  

 

Whatever, design the stages, set it up and I'll  shoot it.  After 30+ years I'm still enjoying the hell out of SCSA and think it's a great way to bring more shooters into the fold.  I'm lending my back-up gun to a new shooter for this week's match.  She wanted to know what .22 she needed to buy and I said borrow what you can and see what fits your needs.  The SCSA community has been very good over the years to new shooters and it's easy to get them involved right away with the clock, scoreboard and paint.  If you start them right they will be an asset to the group.

 

Thank you for your comments.  In the San Antonio area we have a large percentage of wounded warrior veterans.  Even if there are no additional stages added, Outer Limits should be reviewed......down to the height of the height of the shooting box, which is problematic to folks in wheelchairs.  Two new official stages would be a positive addition.  

 

 

[Hoops]

Over 600 views on this poll.  I would to get at least 100 votes for a good sampling.  Only takes a few seconds and is ANONYMOUS. 

 

Thanks.

[hornetx40]

On 8/3/2021 at 6:32 PM, zzt said:

 

When you scale a stage smaller you are moving each target closer to the shooting box while maintaining the correct angle.  If you leave the steel the original size there is much easier to hit.  So you have to scale down the steel as well.  Since SCSA only uses 10", 12" and 18x24" plates, you would have to buy smaller plates to keep the difficulty the same.  Hitting an 18x24 plate at 20 yards is much easier than at 35.

 

I'd rather there be two or more new stages that used existing rules and plates.

Totally agree, If USPSA was going to allow new stages to be allowed I would think they should be smaller so that clubs that don't have the length and width in their bays could utilize them. The new stage should be similar to "round about" or "pendulum" 

[Hoops]

4 minutes ago, hornetx40 said:

Totally agree, If USPSA was going to allow new stages to be allowed I would think they should be smaller so that clubs that don't have the length and width in their bays could utilize them. The new stage should be similar to "round about" or "pendulum" 

The thought process was to have two additional stages with a "new" look, utilizing standard 10", 12" and 18"x24" plates for a 5 plate stage(s) but specifically designed to fit smaller, tighter bays to open up more stage options for many ranges around the country.  

 

Interesting that the voting so far is very close split between yes and no.  I have been talking with a few MD's and several shooter's over the past couple of weeks and have not had a person yet say no-leave as is.  Hopefully we can get more votes to get a better sampling.  For full transparency, I am in favor of two additional stages and believe it would be good for the sport.  But I am a vote of 1 so we will see how the majority votes.

[zzt]

Perhaps you can placate the nay sayers by suggesting that LIII matches must use the original 8 Classifiers, and LII matches have the option to use one or both of the new Classifiers if there is not sufficient room for OL and/or SO and they wish more than six stages.  The idea, at least as I understood it, was to have a couple compact official Classifiers for LI clubs to use when a couple of their bays cannot accommodate any of the existing eight.  I've mentioned before, I'd MUCH rather shoot a five or six official stage match that a 4 stage with two outlaws.

 

Added later:  I'll add it may help the club that can only offer two Classifiers, because that is all of the official stages they can accommodate.  As I've mentioned before, four official stages is the minimum for me to attend the match.

Edited August 7, 2021 by zzt

[Hoops]

2 minutes ago, zzt said:

Perhaps you can placate the nay sayers by suggesting that LIII matches must use the original 8 Classifiers, and LII matches have the option to use one or both of the new Classifiers if there is not sufficient room for OL and/or SO and they wish more than six stages.  The idea, at least as I understood it, was to have a couple compact official Classifiers for LI clubs to use when a couple of their bays cannot accommodate and of the existing eight.  I've mentioned before, I'd MUCH rather shoot a five or six official stage match that a 4 stage with two outlaws.

Excellent summary.  LIII ranges clearly can use all original 8 stages while some very good ranges can't fit OL and/or SO.  But they could host and LII matches with 8 stages by using one or two new stages.  

 

There could be some concern by top tier shooters that records could be impacted or perhaps an impact on classification percentages.  But in reality, there are many, many shooters who get classifications from 4 stages due to range limitations and not having having access to other matches within reasonable driving distance.  They should benefit from additional stages.....I would think.

[Hoops]

I am encouraged by the continuing voting (and views).   The goal is at least 100 cast (more is better).  

 

Thank you........vote 

[Hoops]

Still running tight.

 

From a range standpoint (standard size bays) and having more official options, several folks expressed the positive reasons for Yes.

 

I'm curious about No's.  If anyone votes No, and wants to share the reason, that would be good info.  If not, please continue to take the Poll.

 

Thanks

[louu]

No, first off I'm tired of everyone trying to changing everything all the time. Especially people who haven't been around long. 

 

Second, the idea of steel challenge is to see where you stack up against everyone else shooting the same exact thing. 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by louu

[Hoops]

2 minutes ago, louu said:

No, first off I'm tired of everyone trying to changing everything all the time. Especially people who haven't been around long. 

 

Second, the idea of steel challenge is to see where you stack up against everyone else shooting the same exact thing. 

 

 

Thanks.  Appreciate your comments.

[KelsonAK]

IMO - it's not simply 'add more stages.'  That will trickle into the entire classification piece - and world records.  And World Speed Shoot.  And...

For level 1 matches you can ALWAYS zap in outlaw stages.  My new shooters haven't been terribly interested in outlaw stages - some USPSA centric shooters have expressed an interest, as they tend to like the stimulation of 'new' a bit more than the average steel shooter.

Is it a 'bad' thing?  No.  It's going to be a little more complicated than 'just add them' however.  As such - I'm against it without a lot more planning for the impacts.

 

[EarlKeese]

If you add two more stages for qualification, wouldn't you have to add them to level 3 matches as well(10 stage match)? If you substitute stages in a level 3, that may favor certain shooters and skew results/records.

[Hoops]

5 minutes ago, EarlKeese said:

If you add two more stages for qualification, wouldn't you have to add them to level 3 matches as well(10 stage match)? If you substitute stages in a level 3, that may favor certain shooters and skew results/records.

Adding two additional offical stages would clearly create a number of questions.  To the extent that USPSA/SCSA would not even consider it.  I suppose it would depend on whether or not the full membership were open to the idea.

 

I understand prior to the USPSA take-over of SCSA, there were changes made to a couple of the stages.  My initial thought, perhaps a bit naively, was given the number of ranges with size limitations, it would be good to see an additiional one or two official stages for options.  

 

I am NOT a USPSA shooter.  I have only shot a few USPSA matches.  I understand that USPSA has quite a few classifiers.  When there is a National Level match, do they shoot all the classifiers or do they select from their roster?  

 

Thanks for your comments.