Steel Challenge- Limited Optics 2.0

[zzt]

2 hours ago, Hoops said:

Thanks for a definitive comment.

 

Your reference to “upper levels”…..would you define this as top 2,3 or 4%?  

 

1 to 2%.  Look at the top 20. 100% of the top 20 in CO shot 100%.  That tells me there needs to be an adjustment.  Only the top 9 in Open shot 100%.  Max was #1 in CO, but 16th in Open.  That should also tell you something about where peak times are set.

 

IMO, when all this gets sorted out, peak time will be in the following range.  83.5 Open, 85 LO, 85.5 CO.  Maybe 86 for CO.

 

Added later:  you can make the same argument for PCCI, PCCO, RFPI, RFPO, RFRI and RFRO.  All top 20 shot 100%.

Edited July 9 by zzt

[Hoops]

@zzt thanks.  I’m looking at data that will include WSSC, Area Matches and State matches.  I’ll start with 2%.

 

I’m on grandfather duty today so I’m being held up

[GKB]

18 minutes ago, zzt said:

Look at the top 20. 100% of the top 20 in CO shot 100%.  That tells me there needs to be an adjustment.  Only the top 9 in Open shot 100%. 

 

As of July 04, 2024:

CARRY OPTICS:  16 people are classified at 100%.  Only 1% of all CO shooters are GM (39 of 4,090).

OPEN:  5 people are classified at 100%.  Only 0.8% of all Open classified shooters are GM (16 of 2,055).

 

(Which is different than shooting a match at 100+%, which the Peaks are set by using the WSSC winning times.)

 

[Hoops]

Continuing the discussion on where a Limited Optics division may align with the other centerfire divisions.  I put together a table of all of the centerfile divisions showing the top performaing shooters in each division.  Based on comments from Enos members, both pro and con, I wanted to use a source that include all the Area Matches, State Matches and the WSSC.  Steelrankings.com has isolated only 2023 so this cource was used.  To make the results relavent to 2024, I used 2024 Peak Times to determine percentages within each division.  Not all peak times changed, some have minor changes.

 

In the table, the total number of shooters are shown along with the number of shooters who have an earned percentage of 95% and higher.  No high percentage was eliminated.  In CO's, there were a small few that had not shot a full 8 stages so these were eliminated.

 

I also aligned for camparison, classes that correlate with each other; Production/Caryy Optics, Iron Sight Revolver/Optical Sigh Revolver as examples.  Others are stand-alone; Single Stack, Limited and Open.  

 

My focus was on total times shot, based on the sum total of times shot by the top shooters and divided by how many were included.  For example:  Iron Sight Revolver has a total of 615 shooters with 10 that shot 95% and up.  The average shot by these 10 are shown in the column Total Time 2023, 102.23 seconds resulting in a classification pecentage agerage of 101.73%.

 

The spead times between ISR/OSR is 6.51 seconds, Production/Carry Optics is 1.77 seconds.  The spread between Limited and Open is 7.47 seconds.

 

It is my conclusion that there is room for a Limited Optics division, perhaps even better than the spread between Production and Carry Optics with average times of 92.71 and 90.94 seconds.

 

Please comment.  I am also tagging @ZackJones  since he is steering the Limited Optics discussion.

 

 

 

[GKB]

Keep in mind that the absolute top shooters (mostly true professionals) are shooting Open, which results in faster times compared to other divisions.

 

Why?

 

It's a centerfire gun which is what they are shooting in other completions.  The top handful of shooters only enter Steel Challenge matches at Nationals and WSSC.  They're shooting something else (USPSA, etc) the rest of the time.

 

They're trying to win the overall.  Which an Open gun gives them the best odds to do so.  (Rimfire and PCC are separate categories.)

 

If anything, this is hosing the average shooter having to meet PSTs being set by these top shooters (which gets worse as you go down the classification scale.  A topic for another time).  Which can explain why only 0.8% (15 of 2,055) of OPEN shooters are Grand Master rated when the average across all the other divisions is 3.2% (728 of 22,462).

 

Here's the current Top 10 classified shooters in OPEN and LIMITED.  Only 3 are on both lists.

[Hoops]

@GKB you’re correct regarding the methodology for the classification system.  The very top exceptional shooters across the board dictate PST’s.  The largest classes are B and C.  But, yes, a discussion for another time.

 

This discussion is regarding Limited Optics as a new classification and speculation how it would compare to other centerfire divisions.  Even though I have been an advocate for Limited Optics, I wanted to see data.  All I had was the data that is available which I now believe supports a Limited Optics division.  
 

if there is a better metric to use, maybe someone will note what is.

[Hoops]

I also looked at division dilution by the addition of Limited Optics.  With 1877 Limited shooters it should easily support a Limited Optics division without overly diluting Limited.  Should some CO shooters decided to also shoot Limited Optics, it is very unlikely to diluted CO's at 4357 shooters.  I don't see where there would be any difficulty to fill the minimum of 10 per match.

 

I'm trying to find some numerical reason that would suggest Limited Optics should not  be added.  I personnally don't see one.  

 

One item seldom discussed is the business side of making decisions.  Whether or not a factor or even a consideration, marketing is a reality......how to draw new shooters.  While an unknown, there is some evidence from the manufacturing side that Limited Optic guns have gained in new gun sales data.  Also, would a Limited Optics USPSA shooter be tempted to shoot SCSA matches to work on LO skills that wouled carry over to the USPSA mathes?  Probably. 

 

As Jeff Jones said in the Steel Paint pod cast...........where is the harm in adding Limited Optics?

 

 

[DrewM]

I know as a noob to steel challenge I was intimidated to start because I only really shot LO, and I don’t want to show up and shoot against open guns.  I’ve now also started in CO, so a little less of an issue, but that is going to be a mindset.

 

And all of that despite the fact I knew as a first timer to SC I would suck and it would be a non issue (like any other shooting match)

[TheOneTrueAndre]

Survey Results from the USPSA results page so far: 75% would shoot it. 

Sounds like it's time for LO.

[Hoops]

29 minutes ago, TheOneTrueAndre said:

Survey Results from the USPSA results page so far: 75% would shoot it. 

Sounds like it's time for LO.

Excellent!!

[Racinready300ex]

On 7/12/2024 at 5:46 PM, Hoops said:

I also looked at division dilution by the addition of Limited Optics.  With 1877 Limited shooters it should easily support a Limited Optics division without overly diluting Limited.  Should some CO shooters decided to also shoot Limited Optics, it is very unlikely to diluted CO's at 4357 shooters.  I don't see where there would be any difficulty to fill the minimum of 10 per match.

 

I'm trying to find some numerical reason that would suggest Limited Optics should not  be added.  I personnally don't see one.  

 

One item seldom discussed is the business side of making decisions.  Whether or not a factor or even a consideration, marketing is a reality......how to draw new shooters.  While an unknown, there is some evidence from the manufacturing side that Limited Optic guns have gained in new gun sales data.  Also, would a Limited Optics USPSA shooter be tempted to shoot SCSA matches to work on LO skills that wouled carry over to the USPSA mathes?  Probably. 

 

As Jeff Jones said in the Steel Paint pod cast...........where is the harm in adding Limited Optics?

 

 

 

Certainly people will take another bite at the apple if allowed, not sure that's a reason to add a division. 

 

The math reason would be look how similar the results are for CO vs Open. LO in theory will just squeeze between the two. Do you need 3 divisions with the top scores all within a couple seconds of each other? Or is that a sign that the divisions are to similar?

 

If a USPSA LO shooter is just coming to works skills why would he care if he's in LO or Open? 

 

 

[Hoops]

11 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Certainly people will take another bite at the apple if allowed, not sure that's a reason to add a division. 

 

The math reason would be look how similar the results are for CO vs Open. LO in theory will just squeeze between the two. Do you need 3 divisions with the top scores all within a couple seconds of each other? Or is that a sign that the divisions are to similar?

 

If a USPSA LO shooter is just coming to works skills why would he care if he's in LO or Open? 

 

 

I’m sure there are good pro’s and con’s.  So a broader ask to the membership beyond us in Enos should be a better representation of what the membership wants.  

[GKB]

There isn't 75% of the guns in my matches shooting centerfire pistols.  (10 of 30 guns were centerfire pistol in my last match and that's counting 1 revolver.)

 

I don't see any rimfire shooters that aren't already shooting a 2nd gun switching to LO.  So what 75% are going to shoot LO?

 

I'd like to see the answer to "If you normally shoot Open, would you switch to Limited Optics?"

[RickT]

That's 75% of a pretty small percentage at least at the local level.  >80% of the guns at our local level are either rimfire or PCC.  Most/all rimfire shooters shoot two guns; some centerfire handgun shooters shoot two guns (or the same gun in OPN and CO).  I'd like to see LO happen so I can shoot LO and OPN especially since most of our matches are only 4 stages, but that's me.  I've only been shooting steel challenge for 10-12 years, but the sport has changed significantly IMO.

[shred]

I think it should be more "would you shoot more SC if you could shoot your LO setup not-in Open" versus "would you jump on the new hotness division to get another classification?" for existing steel shooters. 

 

If it turns out the 100% numbers are exactly the same as CO or Open why does it matter?  People are shooting the guns they want to shoot.

 

 

[Hoops]

In the table I made there are about 10,000 centerfire guns not counting revolver.  We run three 6 stage matches per month with a high percentage of centerfire.  In fact, centerfire has increased this past year.  Our shooters want Limited Optics.  

 

It’s hard to gauge from regional perspective.  That’s why a full membership survey is the most accurate reflection of what the membership wants.

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

56 minutes ago, Hoops said:

In the table I made there are about 10,000 centerfire guns not counting revolver.  We run three 6 stage matches per month with a high percentage of centerfire.  In fact, centerfire has increased this past year.  Our shooters want Limited Optics.  

 

It’s hard to gauge from regional perspective.  That’s why a full membership survey is the most accurate reflection of what the membership wants.

 

 

 

I think the question I'd have is why do they want LO. There are several reasons someone may want another divisions, but not all reasons justify the sport adding another division.

 

Some years the top CO shooter and the top Open shooter at WSSC have basically the same time. That tells me there is already vary little difference in those two divisions. To me it seems silly to add another division that's in between the two. 

 

I think there must come a time in both games where we say no to a new divisions. Or at least we get rid of old out dated divisions before we add new ones. 

 

[Hoops]

22 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think the question I'd have is why do they want LO. There are several reasons someone may want another divisions, but not all reasons justify the sport adding another division.

 

Some years the top CO shooter and the top Open shooter at WSSC have basically the same time. That tells me there is already vary little difference in those two divisions. To me it seems silly to add another division that's in between the two. 

 

I think there must come a time in both games where we say no to a new divisions. Or at least we get rid of old out dated divisions before we add new ones. 

 

Don’t take this wrong.  I’m a curious person who likes to understand as much as possible.

 

So, what is the main reason against a new division?  I’ve thought about how many types of guns that would be competition guns and don’t see any left after LO.  Is it records?  Major matches?  99% members don’t shoot majors and only look at variety of guns they can shoot to keeps things fresh.  

[DrewM]

19 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Certainly people will take another bite at the apple if allowed, not sure that's a reason to add a division. 

 

The math reason would be look how similar the results are for CO vs Open. LO in theory will just squeeze between the two. Do you need 3 divisions with the top scores all within a couple seconds of each other? Or is that a sign that the divisions are to similar?

 

If a USPSA LO shooter is just coming to works skills why would he care if he's in LO or Open? 

 

 

 

Well a couple of seconds is an eternity in Steel challenge...lol  

 

On 7/12/2024 at 5:46 PM, Hoops said:

I also looked at division dilution by the addition of Limited Optics.  With 1877 Limited shooters it should easily support a Limited Optics division without overly diluting Limited.  Should some CO shooters decided to also shoot Limited Optics, it is very unlikely to diluted CO's at 4357 shooters.  I don't see where there would be any difficulty to fill the minimum of 10 per match.

 

But look at 'Open' as I think that would be the division that takes the biggest hit right now as LO shooters basically go to Open.  I'm sure a few remove optics for a match, but I bet most just go into Open so they can shoot what they have.  

I'm thinking more along the lower end ranked folks, the A-D people.  

 

27 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think the question I'd have is why do they want LO. There are several reasons someone may want another divisions, but not all reasons justify the sport adding another division.

 

Some years the top CO shooter and the top Open shooter at WSSC have basically the same time. That tells me there is already vary little difference in those two divisions. To me it seems silly to add another division that's in between the two. 

 

I think there must come a time in both games where we say no to a new divisions. Or at least we get rid of old out dated divisions before we add new ones. 

 

With LO being so popular it makes sense to me.  I wouldn't just look at the very top 1%, but over everything  - how does that comparison look for the bottom 75-50% of shooters?  The top shooters generate buzz, but the bread and butter is everybody else (so to speak).  

I think the (much) bigger can of worms is the classifications from a much broader sense, it just seems a little 'broken' at the moment.  

[shred]

If it's all the same at the top then we should just delete CO and those shooters can shoot Open as well? 

 

That's basically the same argument.

 

I see this as "Dude has a LO setup for USPSA, thinks about shooting SC.  Sees he'll have to enter in open and compete against the local hotshot Open GM.  Thinks 'eh, maybe not'".

 

 

[Hoops]

15 minutes ago, shred said:

If it's all the same at the top then we should just delete CO and those shooters can shoot Open as well? 

 

That's basically the same argument.

 

I see this as "Dude has a LO setup for USPSA, thinks about shooting SC.  Sees he'll have to enter in open and compete against the local hotshot Open GM.  Thinks 'eh, maybe not'".

 

 

A good LO shooter won’t compete against a good Open shooter of equal skills.  I totally agree with you.

[Racinready300ex]

52 minutes ago, DrewM said:

 

Well a couple of seconds is an eternity in Steel challenge...lol  

 

Last year it was less then 1 second. And the difference in the CO and Open gear seems more drastic. The results make it seem like it's more about the shooter then the gun. Imagine.

 

LO is just open with out a comp. I can't imagine a comp is such a massive advantage that a LO gun can't just be in the same division. 

 

52 minutes ago, DrewM said:

With LO being so popular it makes sense to me.  I wouldn't just look at the very top 1%, but over everything  - how does that comparison look for the bottom 75-50% of shooters?  The top shooters generate buzz, but the bread and butter is everybody else (so to speak).  

I think the (much) bigger can of worms is the classifications from a much broader sense, it just seems a little 'broken' at the moment.  

 

I agree, it'd be much more useful to see numbers of average shooters shooting a LO/CO/Open guns and see how much real world difference they see. But we wont see that info we'll just have to speculate. My guess is if you give a mid pack shooter a open gun and a LO gun the times will be the same. 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

33 minutes ago, Hoops said:

A good LO shooter won’t compete against a good Open shooter of equal skills.  I totally agree with you.

 

Are you saying they can't or that ego wont allow them too? If it's ego wont allow them too, that's not a reason for a division. With one shot per target I can't see how a frame mounted optic is going to help you. With no power factor and again one shot per target I can't see how a comp is going to be a big help. 

 

If you build two identical guns just one has a slide mounted optic and a blank comp I can't imagine you being able to measure a difference that is more then just the human behind the wheel. 

 

What am I missing?

 

 

 

[Hoops]

59 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Are you saying they can't or that ego wont allow them too? If it's ego wont allow them too, that's not a reason for a division. With one shot per target I can't see how a frame mounted optic is going to help you. With no power factor and again one shot per target I can't see how a comp is going to be a big help. 

 

If you build two identical guns just one has a slide mounted optic and a blank comp I can't imagine you being able to measure a difference that is more then just the human behind the wheel. 

 

What am I missing?

 

 

 

You misunderstood.  I was saying that a side by side with same skills the Open gun would be faster.  That’s all.  Nothing to do with ego.  Of course it’s my opinion but seems to also be shared by others who are very good open gun shooters.

 

But again, what is the real rub against LO?

[Racinready300ex]

17 minutes ago, Hoops said:

You misunderstood.  I was saying that a side by side with same skills the Open gun would be faster.  That’s all.  Nothing to do with ego.  Of course it’s my opinion but seems to also be shared by others who are very good open gun shooters.

 

But again, what is the real rub against LO?

 

I think I said above I don't think there is enough difference in the equipment between open and LO to justify another division. 

 

How much real world improvement are people seeing from two identical 2011's, one with a comp and frame mounted dot and one with out? I think it'd be so close you can't even measure it. 

 

At least in USPSA with multiple hits on target and major scoring there is a big difference. But, even there we see debate as to whether or not CO and LO are to similar and the results seem to show they're almost the same.