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

[EarlKeese]

Pretty sure the USPS guys complain when there's a lot of classifiers in a big match.

 

FWIW, I'm not opposed to different stages. Just had a thought/question so threw it up for discussion.

[rowdyb]

I voted No. I shoot steel challenge casually but I've shot two nationals including one when it was still at Piru. And the recent A4 steel challenge match.

 

I still think making a reduced version of the two stages that can be too large for some ranges/bays is the best option.

• You could still practice your runs in such a way that your plate order would match what you'd do when you ran into the full size versions at other matches. And if you never shot those matches you'd have something similar, keeping you in tradition.
• The new version would be clearly marked to separate it from the original, full size versions. SC has a unique classification system and this wouldn't mess that up. The fact that things aren't exact don't matter as it isn't meant to be exact but smaller but just similar enough to let you shoot the full size version when you see it.
• I would not do it on plates that are only used for this one stage but ones used from other stages for commonality and reducing costs of clubs wanting to run the new condensed versions. Set them up to fit in a 20 yard depth from shooter box to furthest plate.
• It would be a change hopefully felt like a revision or a modification to an existing stage, so hopefully thought of as a bonus or in a positive light, thus helping people avoid the negative feelings of change change change that many feel currently.

[Hoops]

37 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

I voted No. I shoot steel challenge casually but I've shot two nationals including one when it was still at Piru. And the recent A4 steel challenge match.

 

I still think making a reduced version of the two stages that can be too large for some ranges/bays is the best option.

• You could still practice your runs in such a way that your plate order would match what you'd do when you ran into the full size versions at other matches. And if you never shot those matches you'd have something similar, keeping you in tradition.
• The new version would be clearly marked to separate it from the original, full size versions. SC has a unique classification system and this wouldn't mess that up. The fact that things aren't exact don't matter as it isn't meant to be exact but smaller but just similar enough to let you shoot the full size version when you see it.
• I would not do it on plates that are only used for this one stage but ones used from other stages for commonality and reducing costs of clubs wanting to run the new condensed versions. Set them up to fit in a 20 yard depth from shooter box to furthest plate.
• It would be a change hopefully felt like a revision or a modification to an existing stage, so hopefully thought of as a bonus or in a positive light, thus helping people avoid the negative feelings of change change change that many feel currently.

Thanks for your detailed comments.

 

If I understood your post correctly, you would be in favor of reduced versions of the two larger stages (OL and SO) but not as offical stages.  In effect, Outlaw stages that would not be uploaded to SCSA and used to calculate classifications.  Is this correct assessment of your post?

 

Perhaps my original question should have been would SCSA benefit from modifing OL and SP to fit within a reasonable sized bay as opposed to adding two stages.  Those that shoot OL at M and GM levels will continue to do so and the rest of us probably will be close to our current times given the 6 foot movement.....which is where we loose our time.  Peak times stay as they are.  

 

 

 

[edyan]

Yes... being a 75 yr old disabled person, I would love to get rid of Outer Limits... I hate taking those 4 sec penalties... definitely doesn't equate to the type of scores I get from all the other stages. Needless to say, I'm a bit prejudiced on this one. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by edyan

[rowdyb]

18 hours ago, Hoops said:

If I understood your post correctly, you would be in favor of reduced versions of the two larger stages (OL and SO) but not as offical stages. 

Incorrect. I would add them as official stages. Able to be used in any match and used for classification.

Correct on making OL and SO with the same plates and relative positions but just measured out to fit in a smaller bay.

[zzt]

2 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Correct on making OL and SO with the same plates and relative positions but just measured out to fit in a smaller bay.

 

If you don't also scale the plates to match you make the new stages much easier to shoot than standard OL and SO.  That essentially makes them two completely new stages.  So, while I don't object to that I don't see any difference between two scaled stages and two that don't look anything like the existing stages.  Also, both OL and SO are wide stages.  Scaling them down by a third to fit into a typical 25 yard bay means you have to move the close plate back in SO.  Then it is not scaled anymore.  It's new.

[rowdyb]

4 hours ago, zzt said:

It's new.

so what i care about is seeing small round, big square, stop plate, big square, small round and three shooting boxes in OL for example. i want similarly shaped plates in the same order with movement between boxes. i don't want it scaled down in size in every dimension. i want the same type of plates in the same type of position shot in the same manner.

i don't care if it is easier to shoot, i don't care if it creates new times.

 

i do care you can shoot the same plan from full size to revised size. i do care you still have movement between boxes. i do care that then people would get an approximation of what they're missing that clubs with bigger bays have. i do care that someone who has only shot the smaller, revised one could go to a match with the full sized version and feel it was reasonably familiar to them rather than something they've never seen before.

 

Your bike sure is easier to ride with training wheels, but when you're ready for them to come off your bike is still the same bike you just have to do a little more. That's how I see this.

 

And yes, I've shot the match at bulverde/cedar ridge quite a few times, as I live very near there. I don't go to matches with non-official stages in them.

 

Again, I don't want "new stages" at all. But I would accept authorized revisions to SO and OL to let them be set up in smaller bays and identify them as their own, separate stages. With the explicit intent being when you go to a level 2 or 3 match you're doing to see the full size thing. Thinking of the smaller ones as accepted "training" stages for when you get to shoot the real thing.

Edited August 13, 2021 by rowdyb

[Hoops]

13 hours ago, rowdyb said:

so what i care about is seeing small round, big square, stop plate, big square, small round and three shooting boxes in OL for example. i want similarly shaped plates in the same order with movement between boxes. i don't want it scaled down in size in every dimension. i want the same type of plates in the same type of position shot in the same manner.

i don't care if it is easier to shoot, i don't care if it creates new times.

 

i do care you can shoot the same plan from full size to revised size. i do care you still have movement between boxes. i do care that then people would get an approximation of what they're missing that clubs with bigger bays have. i do care that someone who has only shot the smaller, revised one could go to a match with the full sized version and feel it was reasonably familiar to them rather than something they've never seen before.

 

Your bike sure is easier to ride with training wheels, but when you're ready for them to come off your bike is still the same bike you just have to do a little more. That's how I see this.

 

And yes, I've shot the match at bulverde/cedar ridge quite a few times, as I live very near there. I don't go to matches with non-official stages in them.

 

Again, I don't want "new stages" at all. But I would accept authorized revisions to SO and OL to let them be set up in smaller bays and identify them as their own, separate stages. With the explicit intent being when you go to a level 2 or 3 match you're doing to see the full size thing. Thinking of the smaller ones as accepted "training" stages for when you get to shoot the real thing.

An "authorized" revision of any stage would require an SC-1XX designation and a peak time.  Otherwise it's an Outlaw stage and would not be uploaded for weekly classification updates.  Most competitive SCSA shooters probably would not want to consider shooting any stage with the thought it had virtual training wheels.  

 

The initial focal point of this topic was whether or not SCSA would benefit from adding one or two more new stages designed to fit within a standard sized bay......say 30ft x 60ft stage layout footprint....using the same size plate combinations under SCSA rules......10", 12" and 18"x24".  I believe most members would agree that SO and OL are the two difficult stages to run at a high percentage of ranges due to width and lenght (SO) and lenght (OL).  

 

USPSA/SCSA probably would not consider any changes unless there were a high percentage of members who expressed a desire for some form of changes to the current 8 stages we have.

 

Clearly from the current voting, the poll numbers are running close between those that don't want to see any changes vs. the folks who would like to see changes.  It will be intesting how the "un-official" poll numbers will turn out in September when this poll closes.  I hope many of the current 1,000 plus who have viewed this topic will vote.

 

Thanks for those who have voted and/or made comments thus far.

 

 

[RaylanGivens]

I voted 'No" to the poll even though our range and the next closest range to me can not run OL or SO...  A range over 100 miles south of me runs all eight stages...  I drive down to shoot their monthly matches.

 

My thoughts are that providing smaller/different options to OL and SO would effectively eliminate them over time...  Most people would gravitate to shooting the smaller versions because they would probably be easier and faster to shoot.

 

Another reason is because I think it's important to keep the two long distance stages as part of SCSA Steel Challenge...  They are challenging stages.

 

Adding stages to SCSA was brought up several years ago and the long time SC shooters were mostly against it...  I can't remember exactly when it was, but @Zack Jones might remember.

[Hoops]

5 hours ago, RaylanGivens said:

I voted 'No" to the poll even though our range and the next closest range to me can not run OL or SO...  A range over 100 miles south of me runs all eight stages...  I drive down to shoot their monthly matches.

 

My thoughts are that providing smaller/different options to OL and SO would effectively eliminate them over time...  Most people would gravitate to shooting the smaller versions because they would probably be easier and faster to shoot.

 

Another reason is because I think it's important to keep the two long distance stages as part of SCSA Steel Challenge...  They are challenging stages.

 

Adding stages to SCSA was brought up several years ago and the long time SC shooters were mostly against it...  I can't remember exactly when it was, but @Zack Jones might remember.

Thanks for your vote and comments.

 

I was in business for 50 years.  Heavy manufacturing.  Multiple plants.  Often the slightest change in operations was met with some resistence but most of the time......not always......the end result was positive.  So I'm was not surprised to read in your post that this subject was pushed back against some time ago.

 

A final thought......there may be a mis-conception that a smaller stage as compared to OL or SO would be easier and faster.  Within a 30' x 60'/75' bay and a 10" plate here and there, I would think some creative folks could lay out 5 plates with some degree of difficulty other than just raw speed......perhaps.

 

Thanks.........I hope folks continue to vote.

[apoc4lypse]

When I practice, I scale down the back rectangular plates to 2/3rds distance on OL and SO and substitute in a 12"x20" steel silhouette.  The body of the target is 12"x16" so aside from having the corners cut off, it's a good stand in for an 18"x24" plate when scaled down.  I have to do this at my local range as they have rules as to where missed shots can land on the berms, and I don't want to have to set up multiple shooting boxes at different distances while practicing.

 

On OL this would present a problem for lefty shooters as the target positions are not the same for lefties and righties when the back targets are scaled down (on account of shooting the back targets from the outside box then the center box).  You would need two positions for each back target and have to switch them if there are lefty shooters.

 

Having the targets 1/3rd closer does give a slight edge in terms of hit confirmation/reaction time, so I would be leery in using the scaled down version as a stand-in for the official stage when submitting scores.  However I would bet that the small advantage gained in scaling down the big targets is significantly less than the disadvantage you get when some clubs orient the plates parallel to the shooting line (as opposed to toward the shooting box as stipulated in the rules), and yet those scores are still reported.

[mchapman]

At the World Shoot in 2014 at St. George this was a demo stage that SCSA was trying or looking at, I don't know what or why their decision was but must have decided against it. 

[joseywales]

9 minutes ago, mchapman said:

At the World Shoot in 2014 at St. George this was a demo stage that SCSA was trying or looking at, I don't know what or why their decision was but must have decided against it. 

Exactly!

I'm in the "let's add stages to the Steel Challenge portfolio" camp, primarily so that the clubs that lack 35-yard bays can still promote/deliver L2 & L3 matches with 8 SCSA approved stages.
What's wrong with adding a "side-match" stage to the WSSC every year with a completely new SCSA compliant stage design?
Since it's a "side-match", DO NOT include the results in the official WSSC scores, but CAPTURE THE RESULTS and use it to calc a peak stage time.
The following year, add that stage to the SC-1XX inventory of SCSA approved and available stage designs.
USPSA Area and National matches have often had match stages become part of USPSA's stage classification inventory in subsequent years.

 

 

[louu]

I wanna ask all the guys that voted yes 

 

1. Are you a grand Master? 

 

2. Do you shoot steel challenge just for fun? 

[Hoops]

5 minutes ago, louu said:

I wanna ask all the guys that voted yes 

 

1. Are you a grand Master? 

 

2. Do you shoot steel challenge just for fun? 

Clearly I am an advocate for the idea of added stages as I started this topic thereforer I voted Yes.

 

I shoot 2 to 3 SCSA matches per month (year round barring heavy rain) and have a 2.5 hour drive radius so I can get 8 stages at least once per month.  Between June and September I drive 1.5 hours Tuesday nights for a SCSA weekly match.

 

I am 70 years old and a current (actual) M Class in PCCO and RFRO.  I used to shoot STI Edge Limited and STI SteelMaster Open but physical demands have shifted my focus.  I recently shot 3 divisions at CCI Area 4 match.

 

I personnally purchased Official Steel Challenge AR500 steel plates, hangers and stands enough for 8 stages for my local club (5-6 bays) to use for their matches.  I carry 5 stands and 5 12", 4 10" and 4 18x24" plates in my truck all the time and frequent the range for practice twice per week.

 

I have invested "serious" money in various guns and equipment for Steel Challenge and I am not an MD....just a shooter.

 

At 70 now I am still very competitive but also strive to maintain that element of fun and enjoyment of being around my fellow shooters and friends.

 

I am fortunate and blessed to have a great sport......SCSA...... to shoot, have reasonably good health and still have competitive spirit.  

 

Thanks.  Hope this helps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[apoc4lypse]

A 10" plate at 27 & 30 yards... those would be the most difficult shots in Steel Challenge.  Easy to see why they nixed that stage; the 30yd shot would be about 2.7x harder to hit than the current most difficult shot, which is the 10" plate at 18yards.  It would be the equivalent of hitting a 6" plate at 18 yards or a 3" plate at 9 yards.

 

Steel Challenge stages shouldn't make shooters cry with their difficulty, even for those shooters at D levels.  I can imagine this stage making people cry.

 

Hoops, I admire your commitment and wish you lived here so we could shoot together!

[shred]

In the five-ish years I shot Steel Challenge in Piru (many years ago) they changed Flying M to Pendulum and added Accelerator.  I vaguely recall they ditched the Option bonus on Speed Option around then too.

 

Five to ten years before that the match had a whole lot of different stages in it.  Double Trouble, Zig Zag, etc.  Find some of the old SC videos on Youtube and see how they ran.  Plate sizes and distances also varied over time. 

 

Some change is not bad or unexpected in SC.  Some changes were done by the Mikes to make the match run better and scoring be more accurate and some for other reasons.  Stage sizes were dictated by the available bays in the canyon.

 

 

 

[38super]

I would like to see 8 mystery stages, only the RO and Shooter can see the stage layout.  

 

Steel has turned into a game, that is not it's intent.

[AR_James]

10 hours ago, 38super said:

Steel has turned into a game, that is not it's intent.

 

What is/was its intent?  

[Hoops]

For any USPSA shooters who may be active in this post, I have a question.

 

Would the USPSA shooters be satisfied if the matches you have were the same pre-determined 8 classifiers?

 

No "match" stages......strictly the same 8 classifiers?

 

As I said, I am not a USPSA shooter so I have no basis for how matches are set up.

 

Thanks

[Bwenning]

I think that is what I find boring about steel challenge, it's always the same thing, hard to get excited about. The best thing about USPSA is that it is different every time. If USPSA was classifiers only, I don't think I would shoot it.

[zzt]

The same eight classifiers at every match would mean the end of USPSA.  I'd actually prefer no classifiers.  Not so with SCSA.  The games are completely different.  The goal in SCSA is to become faster on the same classifiers as experience, muscle memory, etc. increase.  If SCSA had different stages at every match it would simply be an outlaw match.   We have a Summer steel league around here.  It is all outlaw stages.  People serious about SCSA don't go.

[Hoops]

49 minutes ago, zzt said:

The same eight classifiers at every match would mean the end of USPSA.  I'd actually prefer no classifiers.  Not so with SCSA.  The games are completely different.  The goal in SCSA is to become faster on the same classifiers as experience, muscle memory, etc. increase.  If SCSA had different stages at every match it would simply be an outlaw match.   We have a Summer steel league around here.  It is all outlaw stages.  People serious about SCSA don't go.

I agree.

 

I was trying to draw a correlation to the idea of adding one or two stages to SCSA.  May not have been a good comparison.

 

[38super]

1960s standard issue side arm was a 38Spl, 5 shots with one make up round.  Steel Challenge was an LEO training aid and still should be.  Minutia: IPSC/USUSPA and Steel Challenge all started in Fawnskin, north side of Big Bear lake.

[Darqusoull13]

2 hours ago, 38super said:

1960s standard issue side arm was a 38Spl, 5 shots with one make up round.  Steel Challenge was an LEO training aid and still should be.  Minutia: IPSC/USUSPA and Steel Challenge all started in Fawnskin, north side of Big Bear lake.

It still is for anyone that wants to come out and shoot