"Iron Sight" nats with Limited Optics

[RJH]

12 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

It's not about the numbers of competitors,  how I phrased it. But which division would be most interesting to compare data against LO. CO or Lim? I think it's CO. 

 

And I agree they wouldn't like what they'd see.

 

I definitely think LO and CO will have basically the same hit factors on the same stages and for a time I figured they just be lumped together, but over time I ended up agreeing with moto. 

 

If you allow 2011s in CO, they will squeeze out the other gun types. So keeping the divisions separate is not a horrible idea, even though they compare favorably. It will give the illusion of a fair playing field, where people won't feel they have to spend 2011 money to compete. Then they will go spend $2000+ on an accushadow

 

 

If I am wrong though and after a while there is a strong showing of CO type guns in LO, I would be completely fine with merging the divisions. This will probably happen organically anyway as CO dies

[Dutchman195]

Well after shooting it, I would say it was a optic favored match. And then USPSA went ahead and did some dumb sh!t and put LO with irons again next year. 

[Bigzona]

10 minutes ago, Dutchman195 said:

Well after shooting it, I would say it was a optic favored match. And then USPSA went ahead and did some dumb sh!t and put LO with irons again next year. 

 

Agreed on both fronts.  I was initially surprised that they included LO again, but then thought about it, and it isn't that surprising. They simply don't believe they can sell out the match without LO.

[RJH]

21 minutes ago, Bigzona said:

 

Agreed on both fronts.  I was initially surprised that they included LO again, but then thought about it, and it isn't that surprising. They simply *know* they can sell out the match without LO.

 

FIFY

[Dutchman195]

On 10/10/2023 at 2:51 PM, Bigzona said:

 

Agreed on both fronts.  I was initially surprised that they included LO again, but then thought about it, and it isn't that surprising. They simply don't believe they can sell out the match without LO.

Believe it or not, They dont need to have a 3 day nationals. Have 2 full days - or 1.5 days. If Nationals is only 300 shooters instead of 4, then ok. why does that hurt anything.

 

There are ways around loosing so much money....But hey they wanna do dumb s#!t, they clearly arent gonna listen to some random dude on the internet. 

[Dchassejr]

I wouldn't even say it was an optic friendly match.  I would agree with someone calling it the "Mini Popper Nationals"

[Bigzona]

17 hours ago, Dutchman195 said:

Believe it or not, They dont need to have a 3 day nationals. Have 2 full days - or 1.5 days. If Nationals is only 300 shooters instead of 4, then ok. why does that hurt anything.

 

There are ways around loosing so much money....But hey they wanna do dumb s#!t, they clearly arent gonna listen to some random dude on the internet. 

 

I agree with this. I was recently having a discussion with another local shooter about Iron Sight nationals, and very much made the same point as you.  It should simply be scaled down tremendously, and an option is less days, and certainly less slots.  I appreciate the need to differentiate Nationals from other majors, but the 3 day format doesn't have to be a key lever.

[IL-SIG]

A few questions for folks:
 

How many poppers would you have preferred?  The match had about 40 spread out over 21 stages. 
 

What is the farthest distance a target should be placed?  The longest shot was less than 35 yards and was a wide-open USPSA target.  Is that too hard for a National Championship?

 

The number of days the match lasts dictates how many people are able to participate. Should we only permit GMs and Ms to enter the match and shoot it in one day?

 

Would anyone want to shoot 21 stages in 1.5 days?  Maybe we should reduce the stage count to 10-12 stages and do it it one day.

What’s the right number of stages and round count that would make every competitor happy?

 

Should stages be challenging or mostly wide-open close up targets so competitors can pull the trigger really fast and look cool on video?

 

The point is that as a Match Director you can never make everyone happy. Some will say the stages were too hard while others like the challenges. Some want wide-open close targets while others want partials at 20+ yards. Some don’t like moving targets because they are hard while others like them because they practice that skill. 
 

I can tell you with absolute certainty (because I was part of the design team), the stages were all designed well before LO was added to the match. None of the stages were built to appeal or even specifically challenge LO. In fact most of the discussions while building the stages related to the impact on lower capacity divisions. However, the stages were certainly challenging and tested a variety of shooting skills.
 

It was Nationals after all. 

[motosapiens]

I don't stress too much about a national match being 'hard'. we had 35 yard targets (and 25 yard partials) at 2020 limited nationals, and no one died.

 

Personally, I think it's dumb to lump all the iron sight divisions together. it waters down the competition tremendously, esp in SS. If there's not going to be a deep SS field with lots of heat, that very much reduces the attraction for me, and that's part of why I skipped iron sight nats this year.

 

It always made sense to me to put limited and CO in the same match. It also makes sense to me to put limited and LO in the same match. It appears that help is needed to sell out the irons divisions, so I propose pairing pcc with SS, L10 and production, and also allowing dots in L10.

 

And before anyone freaks out about pcc and ss in the same match, I'm not one of those that thinks we need to have harder and longer shots to test pcc shooters rifle skills. We have rifle matches for that stuff. I'm more in favor of using more props, hard leans and tight spaces to test pcc shooters CQB skills, just like their pistol-shooting comrades.

[Fishbreath]

3 hours ago, motosapiens said:

I'm not one of those that thinks we need to have harder and longer shots to test pcc shooters rifle skills.

 

The PCC shooters I ask generally agree with this sentiment—they're more interested in testing the movement-with-a-rifle skills that an ordinary USPSA stage tests than they are in testing the limits of the 9mm AR platform.

 

As far as difficulty goes, I don't think Iron Sight Nationals was too hard, but it could have stood to test precision a little bit less and position blending/stage flow a little bit more, or at least mix the challenges up a little more. There weren't all that many close targets in the match at all, to say nothing of close targets where round count or forgiving partials permitted shooting on the move. A lot of them were on the 14/15 and 19/20 pairs, and 18 seems to have gotten all of their missing accuracy targets: 17 (by my count) of the hardest shots in the match on a 31-shot stage, and the shooting area could as easily have been four shooting boxes.

 

My recollection is that there were a few too many places in the match where my planning process went, "Okay, stop on exactly this spot, shoot all the way to 8 shots on 15y+ partials and poppers, then go and do it again somewhere else, this time with a lean." Then on to the next stage, and it's the same thing again. The conversation on the revolver/SS super squad went in the same direction. I can't argue with how it arranged the finishers, though, and the spacing it put at the top of the divisions. Nobody went far at this match by being fast and sloppy.

 

On the upside, 1, 11, 16, and 17 (I think; I don't have much video because of the cold, and my memory isn't very good) stood out as above-average stages—they all had some accuracy tests, some positional shooting, and some places where you could flow through a position or two even in revolver. (Notably, 1 and 11, if I have my numbers right, had some plenty challenging shots, just not exclusively challenging shots.) 20 was a fun short/medium course, too, with two arrays of almost maximal variety in difficulty and presentation, and an opportunity to leave while moving and to test entry on a popper.

[shred]

On 10/13/2023 at 9:46 AM, IL-SIG said:

I can tell you with absolute certainty (because I was part of the design team), the stages were all designed well before LO was added to the match. None of the stages were built to appeal or even specifically challenge LO. In fact most of the discussions while building the stages related to the impact on lower capacity divisions. However, the stages were certainly challenging and tested a variety of shooting skills.
 

It was Nationals after all. 

 

Out of curiosity, were there many M-GM's on the design/setup teams?  I didn't shoot that match, but CO nats also seemed to have the flavor of what Fishbreath cited above. 

 

 

 

[ddc]

On 10/13/2023 at 3:13 PM, Fishbreath said:

 snip, snip...

 

My recollection is that there were a few too many places in the match where my planning process went, "Okay, stop on exactly this spot, shoot all the way to 8 shots on 15y+ partials and poppers, then go and do it again somewhere else, this time with a lean." Then on to the next stage, and it's the same thing again.

 

snip...

 

Wow, that almost sounds like an IDPA match. I sincerely hope that was not the case and that I'm having a senior moment...

 

Edited to add: Ok, relax people, before everybody gets upset... I know damn well it wasn't an IDPA match.

Edited October 15, 2023 by ddc

[Fishbreath]

On 10/14/2023 at 11:03 PM, ddc said:

Wow, that almost sounds like an IDPA match. I sincerely hope that was not the case and that I'm having a senior moment...

 

I haven't been to a lot of IDPA matches, but my impression is that we were shooting slow at Handgun Nationals because the shots were hard, not because the scoring is punitive.

 

One thing I liked a lot about the stages was the relative variety in round count—zero 32-round courses, and a good spread in the medium/long course length through the whole match.

[Racinready300ex]

13 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

 

I haven't been to a lot of IDPA matches, but my impression is that we were shooting slow at Handgun Nationals because the shots were hard, not because the scoring is punitive.

 

 

That's kind of the same thing though right?

 

IDPA scoring is punitive which makes the zone of acceptable hits smaller which is harder to hit. It sounds like IDPA Nationals MD this year was working with USPSA because a lot of people are bitching about how tight the No Shoots where and how many there were. Apparently one stage was illegal by there own rules. The have a rule limiting 1 No Shoot per two threat targets. 

 

A example might be, it's not crazy to see a partial in USPSA and even shooting minor decide to aim center of brown to be safe. You might get lucky and get a Alpha, or get unlucky and get a delta but you wont get a penalty. In IDPA that's basically never the case, so your forced to try to make that shot with good hits even if it's risky.

[Fishbreath]

51 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

That's kind of the same thing though right?

 

Kind of, but not exactly, I think. My impression of IDPA is that you confirm harder on, say, a 7y open target than you would in USPSA. In USPSA, if one in five of those hits are Cs, you're probably still ahead; IDPA is a lot closer to shooting at 8" plates.

[Racinready300ex]

41 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

 

Kind of, but not exactly, I think. My impression of IDPA is that you confirm harder on, say, a 7y open target than you would in USPSA. In USPSA, if one in five of those hits are Cs, you're probably still ahead; IDPA is a lot closer to shooting at 8" plates.

 

From a marksmanship standpoint I think smaller targets are generally considered "harder". Typically what is considered a acceptable hit is a smaller area in IDPA. When I'm shooting it I tend to treat the shots like they're farther away and use more visual confirmation then I would for a similar target in USPSA. I do that because the required hit on target is harder to get vs what is acceptable in USPSA. 

 

Another way to look at it is, IDPA is a fixed hit factor of like 2.5. In this match you shot a couple stages in this match where Charlies cost you almost as much as a down 1 in IDPA. So this match people are complaining has scoring much more in line with IDPA then a typical USPSA match. 

[shred]

Is a bunch of start-stop-shoot-run "harder" than 'start-shift-shoot-move' ?