Hi cap iron sight minor guns division, what's it going to look like?

[RJH]

18 minutes ago, truespode said:

 

Honestly, I haven't put the thought into it. I know Ben Berry is a proponent of it.

 

I think the money would be less than 1,000 competitors but they isn't something I have data to back up. I do recognize a lot of names when looking at nationals so one big one would reduce the overlap.

 

Not trying to defend the idea, just mentioning some other alternatives.

 

Ultimately, I don't think we need to have a National for every division and at the same time an fine with a lot of divisions.

 

One thing I do like is that we are a small enough sport we can make changes and try different things.

 

So let's say 1000 for easy math sake. If 15 per squad that is 66 squads. So in a morning/afternoon format, that's 33 stages and staff for them. If you did 20 per squad then you could get by with 25 stages, but if you ever shot 20 per squad, you know it sucks. 

 

It just seems like a logistics issue to me

[RJH]

38 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

I think in time major goes away and all divisions become minor only. 

 

 

I think this is the best answer and, I love shooting limited and ss major 

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

 

I think this is the best answer and, I love shooting limited and ss major 

 

I do too, and I was pretty good at those divisions. But times change.

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

 

So let's say 1000 for easy math sake. If 15 per squad that is 66 squads. So in a morning/afternoon format, that's 33 stages and staff for them. If you did 20 per squad then you could get by with 25 stages, but if you ever shot 20 per squad, you know it sucks. 

 

It just seems like a logistics issue to me

 

I think for world shoots there is a off day in the schedule too, allowing for more competitors with out more bays. 

 

They also use staff reset to help speed up the match, and I imagine the all the smaller stages helps too. 

[RJH]

6 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think for world shoots there is a off day in the schedule too, allowing for more competitors with out more bays. 

 

They also use staff reset to help speed up the match, and I imagine the all the smaller stages helps too. 

 

 

Any idea what the cost is per competitor on the world shoot?

[terrydoc]

~$500 US I believe was last one. If you're asking about match entry.

[IVC]

6 hours ago, Superkaratemonkeyfighter said:

A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want.

Ugh, some genius coded up that typing l.i.m.i.t.e.d m.i.n.o.r switches to the nonsensical phrase above. Happened in my post above, I reported it to mods, let's see if it gets fixed. 

 

I'm pretty sure you didn't type the stupid phrase above  

[IVC]

5 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

I think in time major goes away and all divisions become minor only. 

 

If Charlies are the issue, and they are, might as well call for the whole target to become a single Alpha zone, thus eliminating the whole major/minor debate. Or, dropping both the power factor and the caliber requirements so that marginal centerfires can compete too. 

 

You're not necessarily wrong, but it should be up to the shooters to stop shooting major, not up to us, the peanut gallery, to eliminate the possibility of beneficial scoring with the higher PF. Even the new Limited Optics division is already a concession to the "we don't want guys getting 9 points for the A/C splits" crowd. 

[BritinUSA]

On 9/30/2023 at 2:55 PM, Joe4d said:

Should go ahead and align with IPSC divisions,,, save everyone alot of trouble when IPSC awards another group the US region.

[RJH]

1 hour ago, terrydoc said:

~$500 US I believe was last one. If you're asking about match entry.

 

Yes, thanks. Any idea on total competitor number and how many stages there were? Also maybe squad sizes

[BritinUSA]

1 minute ago, RJH said:

Yes, thanks. Any idea on total competitor number and how many stages there were? Also maybe squad sizes

At the 2014 World Shoot, there were THIRTY Stages. Each squad shot SIX stages per day for FIVE days, the match ran for SIX days so every sqaud had ONE rest day. 

 

I think there were SIXTEEN people per squad, four National teams.

 

If I recall there were 1000 competitors spread over pre-match and main-match

[RJH]

11 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

At the 2014 World Shoot, there were THIRTY Stages. Each squad shot SIX stages per day for FIVE days, the match ran for SIX days so every sqaud had ONE rest day. 

 

I think there were SIXTEEN people per squad, four National teams.

 

If I recall there were 1000 competitors spread over pre-match and main-match

 

Now that makes me wonder how much staff there needed to be to run that match. Especially if it was staff reset. Any idea?

[BritinUSA]

There were three RO's on each squad, so 90 for the match plus the Area RO's that had overall authority over each block of six stages. One would check competitor's equipment, one would be the RO and the other score keeper and I think they rotated for each squad.

 

Florida had some volunteers to help with stage reset but If I recall the RO's and some competitors did help out as well.

 

At the '96 and '99 World Shoots it was all volunteer stage reset, the competitors did nothing but shoot. Both of those matches were all day, not half-day formats.

[ddc]

3 hours ago, IVC said:

Ugh, some genius coded up that typing l.i.m.i.t.e.d m.i.n.o.r switches to the nonsensical phrase above. Happened in my post above, I reported it to mods, let's see if it gets fixed. 

 

I'm pretty sure you didn't type the stupid phrase above  

 

This juvenile auto-editing has been in place for some time now. I'm sure it was funny way back when...

[cautery]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:54 PM, RJH said:

however might be a way to save Ironsight divisions that allow minor calibers to compete without a scoring disadvantage

 

If you think it is about a "scoring disadvantage" then I am of the opinion based upon this one statement alone that you have COMPLETELY missed a KEY portion of the philosophy of the sport.  (meaning: this is my kneejerk reaction to what amounts to a foolish statement and thus is as likely mistaken as it might be reality).

Hope I'm wrong.  You really mean that?  Do you not know WHY there is a scoring "disparity" not "disadvantage" or "advantage".  WEIGHTED..... for a reason.... a good one.

[RJH]

8 hours ago, cautery said:

If you think it is about a "scoring disadvantage" then I am of the opinion based upon this one statement alone that you have COMPLETELY missed a KEY portion of the philosophy of the sport.  (meaning: this is my kneejerk reaction to what amounts to a foolish statement and thus is as likely mistaken as it might be reality).

Hope I'm wrong.  You really mean that?  Do you not know WHY there is a scoring "disparity" not "disadvantage" or "advantage".  WEIGHTED..... for a reason.... a good one.

 

Yes, I know why it is what it is. I also know time moves forward and mistaken ideas like "stopping power" in pistols has been shown to be a farce. And accuracy, especially in handguns trump all. 

 

I also know that all the major power divisions other than open are dieing and wishful thinking will not change that. 

 

Idk if there is  hope for iron sight divisions going forward, but the one thing USPSA hasn't tried is a division based around the most popular gun in the world, a hi cap, iron sight,  minor gun. One where they are not artificially handicapped based on bad information

 

And as a guy who has shot plenty of limited major and ss major over the years it is definitely a scoring disadvantage, not disparity, to shoot minor.

 

I am pretty sure that hanging on to major in limited is going to be one of those "cut off your nose to spite your face" ways of thinking. But, there might not be any saving of an iron sight division anyway, so it could all be moot

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

17 hours ago, IVC said:

If Charlies are the issue, and they are, might as well call for the whole target to become a single Alpha zone, thus eliminating the whole major/minor debate. Or, dropping both the power factor and the caliber requirements so that marginal centerfires can compete too. 

 

You're not necessarily wrong, but it should be up to the shooters to stop shooting major, not up to us, the peanut gallery, to eliminate the possibility of beneficial scoring with the higher PF. Even the new Limited Optics division is already a concession to the "we don't want guys getting 9 points for the A/C splits" crowd. 

 

I think shooters will, and are stopping shooting major.

 

Charlies are the issue, but making the whole target the A is going the opposite direction. Being accurate is good, shooting 50% Charlies and getting 90% of the points isn't all that impressive. 

[rowdyb]

There is a natural feeling that the "pie" of uspsa is only so big. So that if you add more slices or make one slice larger it diminishes the rest. What might be better if there was more than two, viable, national pies to choose from....

[RJH]

2 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

There is a natural feeling that the "pie" of uspsa is only so big. So that if you add more slices or make one slice larger it diminishes the rest. What might be better if there was more than two, viable, national pies to choose from....

 

 

PSCL?

 

I haven't got to shoot any of those matches as nobody in my area host them, but they look pretty interesting.

 

I don't see it really taking off until I get some sort of classification system, or if not that at least several majors in several areas under their rules. Classification system doesn't mean anything to me anymore, but I know a lot of people really like it, and at one time cared about it as well

[rowdyb]

1 minute ago, RJH said:

 

 

PSCL?

 

I haven't got to shoot any of those matches as nobody in my area host them, but they look pretty interesting.

 

I don't see it really taking off until I get some sort of classification system, or if not that at least several majors in several areas under their rules. Classification system doesn't mean anything to me anymore, but I know a lot of people really like it, and at one time cared about it as well

For fun I looked on practiscore at the pscl matches in TX. None of course are on a Saturday anywhere near San Antonio. But if there were, I'd try it.

[whan]

56 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

 

PSCL?

 

I haven't got to shoot any of those matches as nobody in my area host them, but they look pretty interesting.

 

I don't see it really taking off until I get some sort of classification system, or if not that at least several majors in several areas under their rules. Classification system doesn't mean anything to me anymore, but I know a lot of people really like it, and at one time cared about it as well

 

I agree with you re: classification system. Max just had an instagram story where he mentioned that it is in the works, but will take some time to spin up. Will be divided into standards type (stand and deliver, accuracy/manipulation focused) and field course type, and you'll need both types for your classification. Also think he mentioned he'd like to add in ELO as a separate thing as well

 

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

There is a natural feeling that the "pie" of uspsa is only so big. So that if you add more slices or make one slice larger it diminishes the rest. What might be better if there was more than two, viable, national pies to choose from....

 

I agree with you, although I would say I do think the pie has been increasing, particularly in recent years. In mainstream gun culture, there is a bigger emphasis on actual skills, and I do think it's translating into increased competition shooting participation. Most influencers/instructors at the very minimum acknowledge competition can be a useful training tool. Easy one to point to is Trex arms - a lot of recent content is USPSA-styled and know that he's been collab-ing with Stoeger. We're also seeing more influencers use HF scoring and USPSA targets more generally as well. 

[rowdyb]

7 minutes ago, whan said:

would say I do think the pie has been increasing,

My analogy was smaller, just centric to uspsa and the numbers of divisions within it. A pie graph with 6 slices, or divisions just looks better to some people than one with 10 slices in it. People feel if their slice is smaller, then someone else's had to get bigger and that naturally leads to unhappiness.

 

Remember Buddhists? Comparison is the root of unhappiness.

 

I wasn't referring to the place of competition into the wider gun and firearms culture. Which trends you're aware of and accurately interpretting. As an aside, I'd say this is because tactical/defensive crap can't really be scored or measured in the same way a match is. it's binary, success or failure. And it's often practiced alone in a bay or with very few people. A national org, with scores and classifications is a much better measurement of your overall ability with a pistol than just copying standards/drills/scenarios in a bay by yourself to meet some score another dude set in his own vacuum. 

[RJH]

16 minutes ago, whan said:

 

I agree with you re: classification system. Max just had an instagram story where he mentioned that it is in the works, but will take some time to spin up. Will be divided into standards type (stand and deliver, accuracy/manipulation focused) and field course type, and you'll need both types for your classification. Also think he mentioned he'd like to add in ELO as a separate thing as well

 

 

I agree with you, although I would say I do think the pie has been increasing, particularly in recent years. In mainstream gun culture, there is a bigger emphasis on actual skills, and I do think it's translating into increased competition shooting participation. Most influencers/instructors at the very minimum acknowledge competition can be a useful training tool. Easy one to point to is Trex arms - a lot of recent content is USPSA-styled and know that he's been collab-ing with Stoeger. We're also seeing more influencers use HF scoring and USPSA targets more generally as well. 

 

 

ELO?

[RJH]

As far as a classification system, I think the way IDPA does it probably be the simplest to do. Or at least the way they used to do it, where you would set up one stage and run it several ways and  you are classified. USPSA might be a touch better overall, but really probably not enough to matter versus the bigger headache that it is

[Racinready300ex]

2 minutes ago, RJH said:

As far as a classification system, I think the way IDPA does it probably be the simplest to do. Or at least the way they used to do it, where you would set up one stage and run it several ways and  you are classified. USPSA might be a touch better overall, but really probably not enough to matter versus the bigger headache that it is

 

IDPA's system wasn't terrible, but their match bump system has always been broken. USPSA's match bumps make a lot more sense.