As 2014 Approaches does this need to be addressed ?

[30cal user]

Rule changes at the highest level doesn't effect the larger majority of participants, for the most part, did moving the three point line back for the nba change local pick up leagues?

This discussion should be about truly adding more shooters, not changing rules for the top 2%, unless you feel these changes truly bring more people to shoot


I would love to shoot rifles every weekend instead of golf

And not have to drive 2-4 hours to do so

 

[JSF]

One thing I didn't see or perhaps I missed it is scoring wind? Maybe take an avg. of the wind speed for the match?

1-5mph= 1 point
6-10mph= 2 points
11-15mph= 3 points and so on.

 

[nutzo396]

Where's MI in the regionals? Midwest I assume?

 

[FALex]

One thing I didn't see or perhaps I missed it is scoring wind? Maybe take an avg. of the wind speed for the match?

1-5mph= 1 point
6-10mph= 2 points
11-15mph= 3 points and so on.

I don't know if that would be prudent given the fact that the wind is constantly changing; changing from shot to shot. I believe that would be much too difficult to quantify, who would score it...the shooter? Plus, the wind is scored, just depends on whether you hit your target or not

 

[7mmRM]

the scoring is being finalized but there will be a match offset based on the simplified adjustment as noted above.

It would still be based on your placing for scoring purposes. It maybe that flat rate score like noted a few pages back, that was a solid model with each match having the same number of points earned then basing it on your placement with a standard maximum number of points.

Regions

Northeast
NY
NJ
CT
RI
VT
NH
ME

Mid Atlantic
PA
MD
WV
VA
DE
KY

Southeastern
TN
NC
SC
MS
AL
GA
FL

Southern
TX
NM
OK
AR
LA

Midwest
KS
MO
NE
MN
WI
IL
OH

Mountain
CO
UT
WY
MT
SD
ND

Pacific NW
WA
OR
ID
AK

Pacific SW
CA
AZ
NV
HI

Got something against Indiana? Lol!

 

[Lowlight]

Cut me some slack, I'm working it between a host of other things.

 

[JSF]

I don't know if that would be prudent given the fact that the wind is constantly changing; changing from shot to shot. I believe that would be much too difficult to quantify, who would score it...the shooter? Plus, the wind is scored, just depends on whether you hit your target or not

My reasoning behind it is this whole idea is to see how you rank not only with people more your skill level, but also people you never shoot against across the country. The MD can take a reading every hour and right it down. Average it at the end of the competition. I think wind is a bigger factor than shooting position of if you hit the target. Here in Oklahoma shooting all prone the wind can still humble some of the best shooters.

 

[JSF]

 

[0311 Hesco]

Looks like you all are finally on a roll....just got thru the 9 pages and sadly, about half of them are useless cry-baby posts and LowLight repeating himself....haha

In my humble contribution:
I think the sub classes are a great idea and the scoring is really coming along. Keep it up! Honestly I would like to see the train-up incentive happen. It falls directly in line with trying to expand the base here. What if there was a way to instead of make them worth points, rather incorporate it like how CMP does the Leg Matches towards a non-scoring classification?

 

[Graham]

As 2014 Approaches does this need to be addressed ?

A few stream-of-consciousness observations so far:

1) Multiple classification levels and prerequisites for major matches deters participation because it forces entry level shooters to have to buy into the game with expensive equipment and participation levels.

2) As a practical matter, effective chronographing will only be able to take place at the major matches, when enough organization and will and time and support staff are present.

3) The beauty of the sport as it now exists is that an entry level shooter can commit to attending a major match and compete against the best in the country without first making a lengthy and expensive investment in time and equipment to get there.

4) The more rules, the more organization and the more classifications, the more it favors the sponsored guys and corporate interests.

5) Match in a box is a great idea to get more local ranges involved. But, to do that, match in a box should favor 100-300 yard stages.

6) Two classes leads to two rifle setups leads eventually to two champions which, with greater numbers, leads to two championships. Keep equipment freestyle, with the emphasis on problem solving: Course of fire should be used to regulate and dictate the equipment; not the other way around.

7) This exercise in organization is still in need of a defining set of principles, without which no one will be able to agree on how to regulate entry to the big national matches, equipment, prizes, and all other aspects of the league/series.

 

[FALex]

My reasoning behind it is this whole idea is to see how you rank not only with people more your skill level, but also people you never shoot against across the country. The MD can take a reading every hour and right it down. Average it at the end of the competition. I think wind is a bigger factor than shooting position of if you hit the target. Here in Oklahoma shooting all prone the wind can still humble some of the best shooters.

No argument there, wind is THE biggest factor when doing LR/precision shooting, but taking an "average" would mitigate those who took shots when there were significant gusts present. Furthermore, I cannot see how that would change an individual's score as opposed to not adding extra score for the wind. A hit is a hit. A point is a point. No hit, no point. Whether you add on an extra 100 points for some prevailing wind speed in any given hour would not add anything extra to individuals' scores. I think you would have to do it from shot to shot in order for it to matter.

Example would be if you and I shoot at 2 different targets, five shots on each, in an hour. The wind is at 10mph, using your scoring proposition, we'd add 2 extra points to each hit. You hit three on the first target and two on the second. Granted one point just for the hit itself, you'd have 5pts in hits alone, plus 10 extra points for the wind (5 hits x 2 pts per hit). Total would be 15 points. Then, I go and shoot the two targets. I hit two on the first and two on the second, giving me a total of 12 pts, correct? You win, 15 to 12.

Now, what if we took away the extra wind points? You'd have 5 pts vs 4 pts. You still win.

My point is, there is no real pragmatic way to go about scoring the wind. In order for it to matter, you'd have to apply it on each shot. Doing that would be absolutely insane, as stated earlier, who would score it? I have scored a few stages in a few different comps, and believe you me, I sure as shit would not want that responsibility.

A hit is a hit, regardless of the wind speed. Wind is implicitly accounted for in scoring, hence all these super neat "wind cheating" calibers. If you're able to hit when it's blowing 20mph, you get the score.

 

[Lowlight]

[MENTION=13650]Graham[/MENTION]

1. regionals are equally major, and wide open. Also if the SHC becomes the Finale, that opens up room for another that becomes the "Invite-Or"

2.Already discussed. The BCVF makes it a bit easier, even if you understate the MV, the BC is the bigger factor and will still put the Power Factor high enough. For a 6.5 to fall into the Limited Class it would have to be going 2650 give or take.

3. We'd have to define compete in this case. Showing up and being discouraged because you were outgunned is not inviting. See note on Regionals...

4. what more rules, it's up to the match director ?

5. it does... that was discussed back many pages

6. If we have to have two matches to crown two champs because we grew that big, good it worked. Problem solving in a tactical match usually means speed, so instead of rewarding the guy with a better bullet we reward the guy in the best shape. Time is a big factor here, decrease the time you better increase your Crossfit attendance. equipment is not being regulated, at all. It's already abundantly clearly there is a equipment race with the current model. The evidence is all around. The 308 is now a 3rd Tier consideration.

7.There no regulation on equipment, the "speed limit" is strictly to classify the shooter. Otherwise it is wide open. It's up to the individual match director to determine how you use what you have. The rules are dictated by the MD and not the TRL.

 

[Graham]

I like the idea of having a physical component to the matches: Running; obstacles; field courses.

 

[Lowlight]

Just had that discussion with someone who has been to more matches this year than both of us. He is a very reliable source and said to me, the biggest complaint he heard with matches today is the physical side of them. It rewards those in the best shape when it is supposed to be a rifle match.

he was pretty adamant about it, and while I agree having some is good, too much excludes a large segment of the rifle shooting community.

 

[truth]

God damn fatties. They'll be the death of us all.

 

[Lowlight]

Found this funny, (but true) and to help people put this in context.

They are discussing splitting the divisions in F Class again.. and here was a blurb of that multiple page discussion.

Service Rifle has its genesis in the military, that is very clear; F-class, not so much, or at all. The martial rifles that come closest to an F-TR rifle would be a .308 caliber sniper rifle, M21, M40 or whatever the current designation is. The problem is these rifles are totally inadequate for LR F-TR and the game is totally different.

So put that in context to a new shooter, you have F/TR which is 308 or 223 only and your basic tactical 308 rifle is "totally inadequate" for shooting bullseyes on a KD range. Consider that when you ask why do we need to balance things using divisions a bit. If you don't think speed makes a difference, how is it a 308 can't compete with a 308... especially if its just the Indian and not the arrow.

Not meant to side track the conversation back around to where we have been, but simply to add some context to what was previously said.

 

[paindoc]

Just had that discussion with someone who has been to more matches this year than both of us. He is a very reliable source and said to me, the biggest complaint he heard with matches today is the physical side of them. It rewards those in the best shape when it is supposed to be a rifle match.

he was pretty adamant about it, and while I agree having some is good, too much excludes a large segment of the rifle shooting community.

One word (maybe it's 2);
BENCHREST!!!

Frankly, it's tactical rifle. Some semblance of physical conditioning and capability should be part of the equation.

 

[Lowlight]

Key word is some...

 

[Rob01]

Key word is some...

Exactly. Not everyone is 25 year old and triatheletes in this sport. Some of us are in our late 40's and early 50's but still like competing.

There are different matches that offer more or less activity though so you can pick the one you want.

 

[Starbuck]

Just thinking out loud here, but can this be simplified? Think of it this way - the difficulty of a shot comes down to 4 things, more or less:

-Range
-Target Size
-Position
-Time

You could give every shot in the course of fire a difficulty score:
Range:
-Short (up to 300): 1pt
-Medium(up to 600): 2pt
-Long (>600): 3pt

Target Size:
4MO or more: 1pt
2-4MOA: 2pt
<2MOA: 3pt

Position:
Supported Prone: 1pt
Offhand:3pt
Anything else: 2pt

Time:
More than 20s: 1pt
less than 20s to make shot: 2pt
less than 10s to make shot: 3pt

Tweak the numbers as necessary to make them balance, but you get the gist. It would give a rough but simple way to gage the overall difficulty of a match. The difficulty of the course would be an average of the the difficulty scores for each shot. Every match would have a difficulty score between 4 and 12.

I might be missing something huge, but just wanted to float that.

A "Physical Exertion" factor could be added, too:

Low=1 pt (Walking from your car to a concrete slab and making a prone shot)
Med=2 pt (Like stages Bravo 2 & 3 - I think it was B2&3.... - at the 2013 SHC)
High=3 pt (Running up a bigger hill for example than Bravo 2/3)

 

[paindoc]

Agreed. Different matches should and do have varying levels of physical challenges. I
Personally believe that all tactical matches should have some degree of physical challenge to it. Just my opinion, as I am very new to the sport.

 

[paindoc]

What about this to level the field?
The faster the muzzle velocity the higher degree of physical challenge.
Guys that run less than 2800 would have less physical challenges to complete each stage and those that choose to use greater than 2800 have more physically demanding stages.
Let's see what would happen to the benefit of MV with your heart rate at 140bpm and RR of 40.

Seriously it is something different.......

 

[truth]

Some of us are in our late 40's and early 50's but still like competing.

Early 50's as an excuse for being unfit? That's hardly geriatric. My dad just turned 70 and he still nearly keeps pace step for step with me in the mountains. I just ticked off 40 and I'm as fit as I've ever been. Fitness is a choice. Good luck with that.

 

[Lowlight]

Truth,

Rob is a full time Firefighter, I think he is in pretty good shape who also shoots 3Gun which a timed based sport, so clearly he is "fit"

If you want to exclude people based on their level of activity ask your local Crossfit to start a gun club.

 

[Rob01]

Fitness is a choice. Good luck with that.

So is being an asshole. Just saying that not everyone is in great shape and can or wants to run and climb for 3 days. People have aches and pains from living lives and we don't want to make these matches constant gut checks. There are matches like that and if you want to shoot them then all the power to you. Again it comes back to being fun for the shooters.

 

[paindoc]

Truth,

Rob is a full time Firefighter, I think he is in pretty good shape who also shoots 3Gun which a timed based sport, so clearly he is "fit"

If you want to exclude people based on their level of activity ask your local Crossfit to start a gun club.

Wow.
What's up with what appears to be a defensive / aggressive response Frank?

 

[Rob01]

I think he is in pretty good shape

Round is a shape right? LOL

 

[Lowlight]

That is aggressive... you need to get out more.

 

[truth]

Truth,

Rob is a full time Firefighter, I think he is in pretty good shape who also shoots 3Gun which a timed based sport, so clearly he is "fit"

If you want to exclude people based on their level of activity ask your local Crossfit to start a gun club.

If they did I might actually join that cult. A COFWOD would be genius.

 

[paindoc]

I could be mistaken, but it read defensive or passive aggressive.
Maybe I do need to get out more.....
Sorry if I misinterpreted it.
My read of truths comment was that we all can achieve better fitness and improve ourselves but it is a choice. Even people who have severe disabilities can attain high levels of fitness. It is a choice.

 

[truth]

That was the gist of it, but also that not everyone can do everything. Where do you set the bar? How undemanding should it be? Should a person be able to run a mile, walk a mile, reach the remote from the couch? All I'm saying is that this pursuit is inherently physically demanding and it should stay that way. IMHO, at some point yeah, your declining fitness or increasing age should preclude you from being competitive as it does in almost all aspects of our lives.

 

[paindoc]

One of my points was that IMHO was that a tactical rifle match should always include some degree of physical challenge to it. Otherwise it's almost bench rest.
Beyond that it's almost call of duty. Lol

 

[JSF]

No argument there, wind is THE biggest factor when doing LR/precision shooting, but taking an "average" would mitigate those who took shots when there were significant gusts present. Furthermore, I cannot see how that would change an individual's score as opposed to not adding extra score for the wind. A hit is a hit. A point is a point. No hit, no point. Whether you add on an extra 100 points for some prevailing wind speed in any given hour would not add anything extra to individuals' scores. I think you would have to do it from shot to shot in order for it to matter.

Example would be if you and I shoot at 2 different targets, five shots on each, in an hour. The wind is at 10mph, using your scoring proposition, we'd add 2 extra points to each hit. You hit three on the first target and two on the second. Granted one point just for the hit itself, you'd have 5pts in hits alone, plus 10 extra points for the wind (5 hits x 2 pts per hit). Total would be 15 points. Then, I go and shoot the two targets. I hit two on the first and two on the second, giving me a total of 12 pts, correct? You win, 15 to 12.

Now, what if we took away the extra wind points? You'd have 5 pts vs 4 pts. You still win.

My point is, there is no real pragmatic way to go about scoring the wind. In order for it to matter, you'd have to apply it on each shot. Doing that would be absolutely insane, as stated earlier, who would score it? I have scored a few stages in a few different comps, and believe you me, I sure as shit would not want that responsibility.

A hit is a hit, regardless of the wind speed. Wind is implicitly accounted for in scoring, hence all these super neat "wind cheating" calibers. If you're able to hit when it's blowing 20mph, you get the score.

My point is when comparing numbers between people from different parts of the country. Like if a guy in Florida shoots a match worth the same amount of points as I do and he has a 1-5 mph wind and I have a 10-15 mph wind. I may have lower score due to less hits when the guy in Florida had it much easier due to wind. I think wind needs to be factored in. I agree with you if the points were just a matter of where you placed, but it looks like that's not the case.

 

[Lowlight]

You two need to attend a tactical match and not just talk about it...

They all have some element of movement in them. Time, movement, etc, are all part of it. There is positional shooting, run & gun, these are all standard so trying to make more out of it than needs be clearly shows a lack of participation as this is common factor. How much can be debated, but there is alway "something" there.

 

[Rob01]

All I'm saying is that this pursuit is inherently physically demanding

Says who? The matches are only as physically demanding as the MD makes them. Some do more. Some do less. Nothing about them makes them "inherently" anything. They are rifle matches. Not real life missions in Afghanistan.

And your opinion is pretty elitist and noninclusive. Hopefully one day you are on the other end.

 

[doubled]

Less than 10 seconds par time per round in COF description = 2pt
Greater than 10 seconds par time per round in COF description = 1pt

Can you explain what you mean by this a little more. If a stage has maximum 5 rounds and a 45 second par time are you saying 2 points if you finish within 35 seconds. Another shooter would keep shooting past 45 seconds and complete the stage regardless of time expiring or is this something different - having a had time interpreting this.

 

[paindoc]

You two need to attend a tactical match and not just talk about it...

They all have some element of movement in them. Time, movement, etc, are all part of it. There is positional shooting, run & gun, these are all standard so trying to make more out of it than needs be clearly shows a lack of participation as this is common factor. How much can be debated, but there is alway "something" there.

My original response was in response to your quotation of that person complaining about excessive physical demands in F class competitions.
You are correct in regards to my lack of long-term experience in regard to tactical matches. I only have been involved in 2 matches and one of them has been the Bushnell brawl which I found not only extremely fun but also extremely difficult from both a sharpshooting aspect but also from a physical demand aspect as I thought that particular match was phenomenally difficult from a physical nature but nonetheless had a blast.
I also was involved in a tactical match in southern Ohio which had very little to no physical demands in it but nonetheless was still fun to shoot. Between the two is my opinion that the more demanding match combines both the needs of expert sharpshooting skills along with the demands of a stressful physical component.
Again I am a newbie so just saying this for what it's worth.

 

[paindoc]

As far as attending more matches. I plan to. Texas in Feb then maybe one more major in the fall.
Would do more but there are not many I can do in under a days drive and be back in the office by Monday morning.
That's the whole purpose of the thread!
More well run local / regional matches!

 

[Who Dat]

Frank is right the whole match does not have to be set up for us guys that are hard on our bodies and love pain. Hell the match does not have to have any physical exertion, but like he stated "Some". If this works properly and there are more matches, you may not be able to attend every match but you will be able to compete more then you currently are. If there is going to be an event that is physically demanding it should be stated with the announcement for the match. The individual shooter can make up their mind if they want to attend or not. There should be no extra points given because the match is physical and the standard scoring stays in place. Being hard on your body means you do it for you and not for anyone else and the accomplishment of just finishing.

 

[Lowlight]

I never said anything about physical demands of F Class, and going to an extreme regardless is never great, "some" balances it out.

if you think you have to make it physically too hard in order for it to be challenging or fun, then this is why we need this. To explain best practices which balance out the mix of how you put on a fun and challenging match.

 

[Lowlight]

Can you explain what you mean by this a little more. If a stage has maximum 5 rounds and a 45 second par time are you saying 2 points if you finish within 35 seconds. Another shooter would keep shooting past 45 seconds and complete the stage regardless of time expiring or is this something different - having a had time interpreting this.

That is being modified and is not a completed thought.

But basically if the stage was 5 rounds in 50 seconds you would get 2 points or if it was 5 rounds in 1 minute and 30 seconds you would get 1 point. It has nothing to do with the shooter or how they execute it. Plus most bolt action matches say, that is all the time you have. You can't shoot past the time.

If you attended the SHC with 5 minutes per stage, you would get 1 point, but a match with harder timing like K&M would be 2 points because the timing was much harder. (just an example to explain what was being proposed)

The simplified version that Damoncali was much better I think but retained the spirit of the original thought.

 

[truth]

Says who? The matches are only as physically demanding as the MD makes them. Some do more. Some do less. Nothing about them makes them "inherently" anything.

That depends how low you want the bar lowered I suppose. LL's "some" could be viewed as too much or not enough depending whom you ask. I guess my point is that being afraid of "enough" for sake of inclusion is just as bad as there being "too much" at the risk of exclusion.

They are rifle matches. Not real life missions in Afghanistan.

Good to know. I was wondering how we'd sort out all the visa issues.

And your opinion is pretty elitist and noninclusive. Hopefully one day you are on the other end.

I think I'll make a fantastic curmudgeon. Just need the proper porch and enough whiskey.

 

[paindoc]

[MENTION=7]Lowlight[/MENTION]

After almost 2 weeks and a very active thread , just wondering if the feedback you have received has been useful and if your initial design for the TRL has been modified.

If so, where do things stand for the TRL?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[0311 Hesco]

Lowlight, just an early morning thought, its 0510 here right now, on the physical portion, you know how you said you could have handicapped, women's, juniors, whatnot, what about having a "class" for the hard-charging 'Spartans' out there that want to compete with other people that are wanting the physical challenge? they could still run the same course but have provisions set up that you jump thru, crawl thru, run to...discretion on the MD? If the MD sees little to no interest in his local match, he can combine them with the other tactical class.
Maybe this is a stupid idea but I think you really have an awesome thing going here!

 

[Lowlight]

I have updated where we stand, with the changes included. Go a page back.

 

[-Snyper-]

I asked this about 2-3 pages back, and didn't get a response, but what is proposed to get all these regions/facilities on board with this format? If indeed, you've had many contact you on wanting to be apart of this, then great, but unfortunately we can't see your personal PM/emails. If this is the case, have you had a great interest in the TRL? I'm curious to know what matches fall in my region as well as other areas. With that said, can a shooter choose to go out of his area and shoot at different facilities?

 

[chaser_2332]

here is my point of view from a match shooter. excessive rules suck especially when some that have been talked about here would be judgment call. Im all for frank wanting to get more matches together, whatever grows the sports im all about. Even splitting classes based on whatever he decides is fine by me. IMHO it doesn't need to get much more past that in terms of scoreing. Things such as wind score seams like a train wreck waiting to happen. The PRS has been a fun series and im sure this one will be also. I intend to shoot both if this one takes off.

 

[gugubica]

Holy fuck. Some of you guys are trying to make this way more complicated than it should be.

I run a match. It is pretty apearant that alot of you have no fucking clue what is involved in doing so. I will design stages and run it the way I want to run it. Sending a copy of the final score sheet to Frank or Rich is no big deal and I am happy to do it, but all the guys that are wanting to over complicate this with adjustments for this and that and "well what about blah blah that is different then blah blah" are fucking high if they think MDs have nothing better to do then rate their stages with how physical, windy, mentally demanding, etc.

Frank, I would be happy to participate and help in any way I can, up to the point that it gets rediculous. I know you know that.

Everyone else, if you have a legit concern or idea, post it. If it gets shot down, shut the fuck up and quit bitching about it. If you don't like how this turns out when he is done, start your own fucking series. Or, better yet, put your energy into actually shooting some matches.

 

[Big Dog Steel]

I agree...wind scoring is a horrible idea, IMHO. An average for an area is just that, an average. In no way does it take into account actual conditions at the time you took your shot. I remember shooting K & M during a hurricane one year. Is that typical, absolutely not, but things like that happen. Conditions are conditions, you just deal with them as a shooter and move on.

Posted while I was typing...

[COLOR=#272727][FONT=Verdana]Holy fuck. Some of you guys are trying to make this way more complicated than it should be. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#272727][FONT=Verdana]I run a match. It is pretty apearant that alot of you have no fucking clue what is involved in doing so. I will design stages and run it the way I want to run it. Sending a copy of the final score sheet to Frank or Rich is no big deal and I am happy to do it, but all the guys that are wanting to over complicate this with adjustments for this and that and "well what about blah blah that is different then blah blah" are fucking high if they think MDs have nothing better to do then rate their stages with how physical, windy, mentally demanding, etc.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#272727][FONT=Verdana]Frank, I would be happy to participate and help in any way I can, up to the point that it gets rediculous. I know you know that.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#272727][FONT=Verdana]Everyone else, if you have a legit concern or idea, post it. If it gets shot down, shut the fuck up and quit bitching about it. If you don't like how this turns out when he is done, start your own fucking series. Or, better yet, put your energy into actually shooting some matches.[/FONT][/COLOR]

EXACTLY! I think it makes sense to find a simple way to split up into divisions, even though I may dust off my 308 and give that a whirl if this comes to fruition. However, scoring should be simple and straight forward. It HAS to be for not only MD's but for match shooters as well. Like I said before there's enough going through our heads approaching a stage without trying to figure out another overly complicated math problem, just to anticipate what we need to do to stay in the running.

 

[deadnbrkn84]

i like the idea of having a physical component to the matches: Running; obstacles; field courses.

absolutely!!!

I'm sorry and I know not everyone is going to like this, but if you're shooting a "Tactical Rifle Match" then the physical part should be implied. If you don't want the physical aspect of it because "it's a rifle match" then you should shoot benchrest.

I shoot as many matches a year as I can and if they were limited to a very small amount of physical activity this sport would lose a lot of interest to me. I'm not saying we need to run seven miles from stage to stage but if you can't "run" the 1/4 mile berserker stage at rifles only, or climb the net wall to shoot off the top then this sport probably isn't for you.

I just don't think we should dumb down the physical aspect of these matches just so they are more "user friendly"

Just my .02