First draft of SMG Comp guidelines is READY...

The final word on what flys and what doesn't in competition. What do you think we need to do to make each and every match fair and safe for all shooters.
SubGunFan
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:09 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Mississippi

First draft of SMG Comp guidelines is READY...

Post by SubGunFan » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:02 pm

Hello all:

The first DRAFT of the SMG Competition Guidelines is ready for your review, comments, and additions...

PM me or email me at: danmillREMOVE@bellsouth.net and I will be glad to send you a copy. The file formats are .doc & .rtf so hopefully you will be able to open at least one of them.

PLEASE post ALL of your replies on this board (do NOT reply to me directly). That way everyone here can see all the comments and the directions we are going.

PLEASE NOTE: This is just the first draft (a start). At this point, I am calling the document "guidelines" because it is a LONG WAY from being a "rulebook".

Don't be afraid of posting your comments and/or ideas. The more people that contribute, the BETTER.

User avatar
todd
Site Admin
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:11 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Miami Beach, Florida USA
Contact:

Post by todd » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:41 pm

Nice job SubGuFan. A few notes

DNF - A DNF per NFA manual is the highest time on the stage + 30 seconds. I think that is a bit more balanced than 500 seconds.

Additional start position:

"Cruiser ready" Which is magazine inserted but no round in chamber. Bolt closed on empty chamber for closed bolt and bolt closed on empty chamber for open bolt.

VegasSMG
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:04 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Vegas baby!
Contact:

Post by VegasSMG » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:17 pm

Thanks for your effort SunGunFan! I still haven't digested all of it but I will. You've certainly put lots of effort into this! Sorry to have cut you off last night... that was Tom Bowers calling and he tried for almost an hour to convince me to go to the Big Sandy this weekend. There's a subgun match there and Tom's donating some mugs and shirts as prizes. I'll be there for the March shoot if I have to walk!

SubGunFan
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:09 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Mississippi

Post by SubGunFan » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:51 am

.

DRAFT - - - DRAFT - - - DRAFT - - - DRAFT


GUIDELINES for SUBMACHINEGUN COMPETITION

2006



Introduction:

These guidelines are the result of ongoing discussions of people from different Internet firearm/shooting related boards, and at this point, are still going through revisions and improvements. It is the intent of the people building these guidelines that at some point in the near future, these guidelines evolve into a rulebook for SMG competition that will be utilized by all clubs and groups nationwide. SMG competition is currently a young and growing shooting sport. At the present, the clubs and groups conducting SMG matches are using a wide array of rules that can vary greatly. As SMG competition grows and people travel to other areas to shoot matches, the current variation in rules causes problems among the competitors. The purpose of these guidelines is to create a level playing field for everyone.

Most of the information in these guidelines come from the old NFA rulebook and current IPSC rulebook. The remainder of the content comes from adopting current SMG match practices that seem to work. All shooters (competitive or casual, both full-auto and semi-auto owners) are welcome to add their input into the development of these SMG competition guidelines. The website www.bullethose.com is currently acting as the main Internet board for discussions to develop these guidelines. Your constructive comments are welcomed.

COMMENTS:________________________________________________

The main purpose of SMG matches is to HAVE FUN in a competitive surrounding. Since our “toysâ€Â

StealthyBlagga
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:18 pm
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: AZ

Post by StealthyBlagga » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:47 pm

SubGunFan

You have clearly put a lot of though and work into this first draft, so I am determined to give you CONSTRUCTIVE feedback. As is to be expected with a first draft, there is a lot missing, and so I will try to point out where you can find the "missing stuff". Its just my 2 cents worth, so please don't take anything personally :D .

INTRODUCTION
This is an excellent preamble. I would also encourage you to review the "Principles/Objects" section of the IPSC constritution (regretably, no longer part of the IPSC rule book) and see what - if anything - ports over to your rule book. This covers "practicality" and "relevance" (i.e. how courses of fire are are supposed to be consistent with plausible gunfighting scenarios, and equipment is supposed to be "practical"). From the IPSC website (my notes in parenthesis):

"IPSC Principles/Objects
The IPSC is established to promote, maintain, improve and advance practical shooting, to safeguard its principles and to regulate its conduct world-wide in order to cultivate the safe and efficient use of firearms by persons of good character and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, to achieve such objects by adhering to the following principles, which are established to define the nature of practical marksmanship and are embodied in the following words:- Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas , namely, Accuracy, Power and Speed. They are accepted by all members of the International Practical Shooting Confederation as conditions of membership.

- Practical competition is open to all reputable persons without regard to occupation, it may specifically not be limited to public servants.

- Accuracy, power and speed are the equivalent elements of practical shooting and practical competition must be conducted in such a way as to evaluate these elements equally.

- Firearm types are not separated, all compete together without handicap. This does not apply to the power of the firearms as power is an element to be recognised and rewarded (within the framework of the various equipment divisions, e.g. limited, open etc.).

- Practical shooting competition is a test of expertise in the use of practical firearms and equipment. Any item of equipment, or modification to equipment, which sacrifices practical functionality for a competitive advantage contravenes the principles of the sport.

- Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect the general size and shape of such objects as the firearm used may reasonably be called upon to hit in their primary intended use (i.e. gunfighting).

- The challenge presented in practical competition must be realistic. Courses of Fire must follow a practical rationale, and simulate sensible hypothetical situations in which firearms might reasonably be used (i.e. gunfights).

- Practical competition is diverse. Within the limits of realism, problems are constantly changed, never permitting unrealistic specialisation of either technique or equipment. Courses of Fire may be repeated, but no course may be repeated enough to allow its use as a definitive measure of practical shooting skill.

- Practical competition is free-style. In essence, the competitive problem is posed in general and the participant is permitted the freedom to solve it in the manner he considers best within the limitations of the competitive situation as provided."

TYPES OF MATCHES
Sounds reasonable. You might want to specify a minimum number of rounds for each match type too.

TYPES OF STAGES
The NFA stage types are not defined, so I can't comment on whether these definitions make sense. In any case, I would suggest you stick with the "field", "speed" and "standard" stage types, as these are more universally understood terms and are very clear.

Your definitions under each stage type make sense, and I particularly like the limitation of "stunt shooting" (sorry Todd :twisted: I meant "positional shooting") to standard exercises. You may want to specify both minimum and maximum numbers of rounds for each stage type, and some speed shoots could be very short (less than 6 targets is arguably more realistic). I would also like, somehow, to encourage more freestyle shooting in the field courses by limiting the use of fixed shooting positions (subject to all the safety blahblahblah). You might also consider defining whether a match should have a recommended ratio of stage types (e.g. 3:2:1 ratio of speed shoots:field courses:standard exercises).

TYPES OF TARGET
I sometimes feel that IPSC rules are too restrictive in what is allowed as a "legal" target. I like to allow local clubs to use whatever they can find to hand. On the other hand, we do want a level playing field, so I would like them to be at least somewhat familiar and equitable for all shooters during the match. For example, bowling pins can become damaged during a match, and therefore fall differently for different shooters - a potential source of inequality that can be avoided by making sure the targets used are going to be the same throughout the match. Some guidelines on course layout - such as staking of target stands to ensure a consistent location - would be worthwhile too.

Paper targets should have an outer non-scoring border, so as to avoid arguments over greasemarks around the edge of the cardboard. This would typically rule out paper plates, Bianchi targets etc. I would also discourage the use of photo-realistic targets in serious competition - even IDPA avoids these as they are difficult for the shooter to differentiate reliably, especially when they start to get shot up and taped over. If you want to show "hostile" versus "friendly" you can use different colors (like IPSC) or you can spray paint/attach "surrender hands" or "weapons" to standard IPSC paper targets (this is what IDPA does).

Steel targets can also be used to solve the power factor conundrum. I do feel that power factoring is an administrative burden for most matches (needing a chronograph etc.), but if we don't have some way to reward power, we will end up like Cowboy Action Shooting where the bullet barely makes it out of the barrel. I propose using Pepper Poppers calibrated with a 9mm pistol, using the standard IPSC Popper calibration procedure - this way, weak loads will put the shooter at a disadvantage, and hot loads (e.g. .45ACP) will be an advantage. As for .22, we can either ban the caliber as being too weak (e.g. IPSC specifies 9mm as a minimum) or we can assess a penalty for not dropping the steel targets (which the .22 won't be able to do reliably).

SCORING OF TARGETS
Like many people, I see the IPSC scoring system as being too burdensome from a data entry perspective. I much prefer the IMGA "time-plus" system, where targets are neutralized, and this is essentially what you are proposing. I would personally prefer the IMGA method of "one A or two hits anywhere", or a variation thereof (e.g. "two A's or three hits anywhere" etc.), rather than adding up the points, simply because the IMGA way is significantly faster for the RO to score and has less potential for error (i.e. no mental arythmetic).

What the rules are for neutralization, though, is less important than is making the rules THE SAME - don't change the neutralization criteria from stage to stage, match to match. If you want to make things more difficult, add hard cover (oh, and you need clear rules for how to mark hard cover on targets - a Sharpie line is not good enough).

Lastly, I feel strongly that all shoot targets, no-shoot targets and hard cover should be deemed inpenetrable... shoot throughs should not score (whether on shoot or no-shoot targets, unless edge-hits of course). This is rational, consistent with what most people are used to, greatly simplifies scoring and ensures a level playing field.

PENALTIES
Again, the time values of the penalties are less important than is making the penalties the same. I want to know what to expect.

Some food for thought, under IPSC rules the RO has the discretion to award "one penalty per shot fired while faulting" where there is an advantage (e.g. for a deliberate footfault around a barricade), or "one penalty only" where there is no advantage (e.g. for an inadvertant footfault in an open shooting box). This is generally fairer, particularly with non-tactile shooting boxes.

I would also strongly encourage you to formally codify procedures for dispute resolution (escalation of competitor protest), and make the disqualification criteria very strong and clear. The safety DQ policy, in particular, needs to leave little or no room for RO interpretation... UNSAFE is UNSAFE, period ! This is one area where you could literally copy-and-paste all of Chapters 10 and 11 from the IPSC rulebook, and just delete a few minor non-applicable segments.

SCORING A MATCH
As I have said before, the pure "time plus" approach is poor, because it weights the outcome of the match disproportionately towards a few big stages... the speedshoots and standards, being faster, have less value. I much prefer the SMM3G approach of normalizing each stage to 100 points by dividing the fastest shooter's time by each shooters time, then multiplying the result by 100 points. (edited to fix my crappy math)

EQUIPMENT DIVISIONS
IMHO, less is more here. Given the number of competitors at the typical match, you really only need a couple of divisions. I would propose "Open" (no restrictions), "Limited" (iron sights, no compensator, mag filled with less than 36 rounds) and Buzzgun (like Limited, but ROF greater than 1000rpm). I'm not too hung up on the details though.

OTHER STUFF
I would prefer that start positions be left to be defined in the COF. The same with shooting stances (standard exercises ONLY).
Last edited by StealthyBlagga on Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:15 pm, edited 5 times in total.

StealthyBlagga
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:18 pm
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: AZ

Post by StealthyBlagga » Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:02 pm

I would add that you should scan through the IPSC Rifle rulebook if you've not done so already. You will find many administrative area that you will not want to think about, and you might want to just lift the relevant stuff verbatim right into your rules. Examples would be Chapters 1, 2, 3, some of 4, a few snippets from 5, 7, some of 8, most all of 9, and most of 10 and 11 (as mentioned above).

One area that bears thought is the range commands. The internationally recognized commands (see the IPSC rulebook, section 8.3) are very clear, but of course would have to be tweaked for open bolt subguns (i.e. do they leave the line locked open or closed ?).

I'm not trying to railroad you into using the IPSC rulebook necessarily - you should change whatever does not fit (targets, scoring system, result calculation etc.) - but I would encourage you to think about the less glamorous things that are already covered well by the IPSC rules. For example, what rules do you have about competitors interfering with targets ? How should a foot-fault line be constructed so as to be tactile, yet not a trip hazard ? How do you deal with prematurely patched targets, or targets that were not patched since the last shooter ? Does a miss on a disappearing target incur a miss penalty ? This and many other things you wouldn't ordinarily think about are covered here in a logical and sensible way. Dare I say it - why reinvent the wheel ? :mrgreen:

SubGunFan
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:09 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Mississippi

WOW..... Great reply ! ! !

Post by SubGunFan » Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:06 pm

StealthyBlagga:

You put almost as must effort into your reply as I did in the DRAFT.

This reply will be short because of a meeting soon, but more later....

I am a CRO in IPSC (have been for many years) and I agree with you that a lot of the IPSC rulebook should carry over to SMG match rules. When the old NFA rulebook gets "published", we all will be able to better compare the two and select the best of both.

You have stated some very good points, and I will add my 2 cents later...

SubGunFan
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:09 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Mississippi

More replies.....

Post by SubGunFan » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:26 pm

StealthyBlagga:

OK, I am back now.............

"You have clearly put a lot of though and work into this first draft, so I am determined to give you CONSTRUCTIVE feedback. As is to be expected with a first draft, there is a lot missing, and so I will try to point out where you can find the "missing stuff". Its just my 2 cents worth, so please don't take anything personally."

Yes I have, but a "start" was needed.... And yes, there is quite of bit of stuff missing so far. The missing components are the reason I am calling this document "Guidelines" and not "Rules" at this point in time. With your shooting history, your "2 cents" is more like "2 bits" (more valuable).

INTRODUCTION
This is an excellent preamble. I would also encourage you to review the "Principles/Objects" section of the IPSC constritution (regretably, no longer part of the IPSC rule book) and see what - if anything - ports over to your rule book. This covers "practicality" and "relevance" (i.e. how courses of fire are are supposed to be consistent with plausible gunfighting scenarios, and equipment is supposed to be "practical").


Thank you on the preamble comment. Like the IPSC rulebook (older more than newer), I wanted to state why we hold SMG matches and the underlining purpose behind the matches. As IPSC competitors, you and I both know that current IPSC stages (in general) are more geared toward "round count" than "practical". But for the "recreational match shooter", coming to an "all practical" match where all the stages are "quick & dirty" and firing only about 25 rounds all day, we all know that would not last long.... Since SMGs are used a lot less than handguns and rifles in real life situations today, it is much harded to determine what "practical SMG shooting" is. Yes, SMGs make for great movie seens (hip shooting using special blank rounds that produce more muzzle flash) and I am not promoting that SMG match follow Hollywood. But you have to admit, Hollywood does have a "fun factor" when it comes to SMG matches.

TYPES OF STAGES
The NFA stage types are not defined, so I can't comment on whether these definitions make sense. In any case, I would suggest you stick with the "field", "speed" and "standard" stage types, as these are more universally understood terms and are very clear.


Basically.... SPORT is a more fun type of stage where misc. targets are allowed and "practical" really doesn't apply. PRACTICAL is as the name implies, more realistic. TACTICAL is more training for what might happen. The NFA rulebook definitions will be added. As you know, FIELD COURSE, SPEED SHOOT, and STANDARDS comes from IPSC, and are good descriptions of what the shooter will be doing in the stages.

Paper targets should have an outer non-scoring border, so as to avoid arguments over greasemarks around the edge of the cardboard. This would typically rule out paper plates, Bianchi targets etc. I would also discourage the use of photo-realistic targets in serious competition - even IDPA avoids these as they are difficult for the shooter to differentiate reliably, especially when they start to get shot up and taped over. If you want to show "hostile" versus "friendly" you can use different colors (like IPSC) or you can spray paint/attach "surrender hands" or "weapons" to standard IPSC paper targets (this is what IDPA does).

As for the outer non-scoring area on targets, I agree it is preferred, but I don't think it should be required. Bianchi Cup-Action Pistol (NRA D-1) "tombstone" targets would make good SMG targets... IMHO. Also, IPSC Classic targets would work. We all know that both the NRA Action Pistol and IPSC Classic targets were created for when the "outside media" shows up and wants to film the shooting.....

SCORING A MATCH
As I have said before, the pure "time plus" approach is poor, because it weights the outcome of the match disproportionately towards a few big stages... the speedshoots and standards, being faster, have less value. I much prefer the SMM3G approach of normalizing each stage to 100 points by dividing each shooters time by that of the fastest shooter and then multiplying the result by 100 points.


Here is another place I have to agree with you almost 100%. True, "pure time" is easy for the people doing the match scores, but like you said, Field Courses rule all others. IMHO... For SMG competition to grow, I feel all 3 (sub)types of stages should be utilized. Granted, Field Course are generally the most fun and burn a bunch of ammo. Speed Shoots can be more practical or "gimick". And Standards help train and teach you. I think another scoring system other than "pure time" needs to be developed.

EQUIPMENT DIVISIONS
IMHO, less is more here. Given the number of competitors at the typical match, you really only need a couple of divisions. I would propose "Open" (no restrictions), "Limited" (iron sights, no compensator, mag filled with less than 36 rounds) and Buzzgun (like Limited, but ROF greater than 1000rpm). I'm not too hung up on the details though.


I listed 8 basic divisions just as a "master plan". True, the more division options there are, the fewer shooters that compete against each other. But on the other hand, it gives the shooters in the local matches more chances to run through the match with the same firearm.

Damn, I missed dinner....... Time to go........... :)

StealthyBlagga
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:18 pm
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: AZ

Re: WOW..... Great reply ! ! !

Post by StealthyBlagga » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:04 pm

SubGunFan wrote:...I am a CRO in IPSC...
Shhhhhhhhh - someone might hear you :mrgreen: .

Sounds like I am preaching to the choir. I look forward to seeing how the rules start to flesh out. Thanks for taking the initiative on this.

User avatar
todd
Site Admin
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:11 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Miami Beach, Florida USA
Contact:

Post by todd » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:30 pm

Blagga you have some great points. I'll respond with the same headings.

INTRODUCTION
I like what SubGunFan has and I think with a little bit more work we can exact a perfect preamble encompassing both the desire to build skill and have fun.

Although I like the IPSC preamble I feel that 100% practical / tactical is unrealistic. I think here in FL the mandate was to do 51% sport courses which can be a mix of any target types. In fact I think we do more likely 90% sport and 10% tactical/practical. More skill is involved in the sport courses we do in terms of what we see at competitions nation wide. I'm not sure many people at all do the CQB stuff we have tried here. I think there is a fear of some body getting "the wrong impression" and going Waco on them with the BATFE. I really don't know. I'll post video of a CQB house a little later when google approves it.

TYPES OF MATCHES
Regional could be added.

TYPES OF STAGES
You kill me Blagga... :D Remember one of the the goals is to not limit things. Shooters choice right? :lol: I know you are mad about my armored car example I posted for indirect shooting. It's OK to be wrong sometimes, I still respect you :p

TYPES OF TARGET
I agree 100% on the need to ensure target integrity for non local matches. If you don't feel you are shooting the same COF as the other competitors who ran before or will run after you then it feels unfair. There should be an acceptable target for stage type matrix or something so stuff like bowling pins and balloons don't show up in a tactical match at the State level.

SCORING OF TARGETS
I spoke with Vegas SMG today and aparently the Vegas crew scores their targets 2 A zone hits or nothing... It's harder than what we do here but I prefer the challenge to simplicity. It makes for better shooters. I would offer up 2 A zone hits (center mass), 2 head shots anywhere or 1 head A shot. It's tough but rewards the precision subgunner (oxymoron? I don't think so).

PENALTIES
I think +10 across the board is good. It's standardized and enough to ruin you on your best day if the #2 guy doesn't miss a beat.
Bonus +5
DNF = High score + 30

In my mind there should be no point in any stage where a competitor even considers taking a penalty to save time. This needs to be guarded against at the highest most level of stage design and CRO review of stages. L34A1 spoke to me a bit on this issue and his solution to such a move by a shooter would be to give a fail to do right penalty to the shooter for the action as well as the droppped target time. The end result needs to make the RO's decision as simple as possible.

SCORING A MATCH
I like the normalization idea but I do not follow how the plus time method oubalances things. Each person has the same chance to do well on each run. Screwing up on a larger stage would put you in the dog house with either scoring method. Either you endup with a couple hundred points more with normalization or a few minutes more with time +

EQUIPMENT DIVISIONS
I agree less is more. Although I like the way KCR has 4 classes I believe that people are beginning to see the myth of closed bolt superiority on first round out. We run simply Irons and Glass here... optics or no optics. It's simple and it works but I do not believe it is the best solution. All guns are NOT the same and can not compete on the same level. I have pondered it before and I'm not sure how viable it is but it almost seems as if a handicapping system could be developed based on ROF with around 600 RPM being the base line. It would be too time consuming enforce but to date I have not seen a fool proof classification system. Someone will always feel they are in the wrong spot.

If the classes were broken into age and optics/ irons I think it would lend for a comfortable result set especially as a lot of these geesers...err i mean elder shooters :twisted: slip into their twilight years behind the trigger.

OTHER STUFF
Left to the COF description

Safety position

Start positions (prone, standing, kneeling, sitting, leaning, cruiser ready, rhodesian ready, surrender, hands on hips etc..)

Muzzle always down in every circumstance. Remember the rules of safe firearm handling.. know your backstop and what is beyond... if you have a muzzle up and have an AD you do not know your backstop or where it went... I know a lot of folks in some sandy states who do port arms muzzle up and it is a habbit that has to be broken for safety sake.

In retrospect after mulling it over for a week I think all AD's should be match DQ's with the sole exception being a mechanical AD resulting in no danger to anything (berm impact) being a stage DNF and a match DQ until the time the competitor can demonstrate proper functioning of the firearm.

Max distance... I'm still stuck on 100-150 yrds. If you have never shot your subbie (m11's included) at 100 yrds I think you will be surprised at the accurace they can have in semi. It is a skill and although most likely not often it should be exercised.


As far as foot faults and competitors messing with targets... Foot faults should be +10... If a competitor messes with another competitors targets then that competitor should take the targets place he messed with
:twisted:

User avatar
todd
Site Admin
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:11 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Miami Beach, Florida USA
Contact:

Re: WOW..... Great reply ! ! !

Post by todd » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:04 pm

StealthyBlagga wrote:
SubGunFan wrote:...I am a CRO in IPSC...
Shhhhhhhhh - someone might hear you :mrgreen: .

Sounds like I am preaching to the choir. I look forward to seeing how the rules start to flesh out. Thanks for taking the initiative on this.
SubGunFan and I have been talking about stuff like this for a while now back and forth. His open mindedness is what makes him the man. He doesn't call me retarded and I accept he has better video equipment than me... we get along just fine :D

StealthyBlagga
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:18 pm
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: AZ

Post by StealthyBlagga » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:30 pm

todd wrote:Remember one of the the goals is to not limit things
Its not my intention to limit the shooter. In "speed" and "field" stages, the shooter should be 100% free to shoot with any style they like (even "stunt shooting" if you like that kind of thing). However, no particular position should be MANDATED by the course designers. The only exception should be in the case of "standards", in which the shooters positional shooting skills may be tested in a controlled environment. This is consistent with IPSC practices.
todd wrote:It's OK to be wrong sometimes, I still respect you


Repeat after me "Stealthy is NEVER wrong ! Stealthy is NEVER wrong !..."
todd wrote:I agree 100% on the need to ensure target integrity for non local matches
Repeat after me "Stealthy is NEVER wrong ! Stealthy is NEVER wrong !..."
todd wrote:I spoke with Vegas SMG today and aparently the Vegas crew scores their targets 2 A zone hits or nothing... It's harder than what we do here but I prefer the challenge to simplicity. It makes for better shooters. I would offer up 2 A zone hits (center mass), 2 head shots anywhere or 1 head A shot. It's tough but rewards the precision subgunner (oxymoron? I don't think so).
This is a matter for debate - what balance is appropriate for accuracy vs speed. I don't particularly have a dog in this fight, so long as it is consistent and easy/quick to measure with low risk of error. Personally, I would lean towards a bit more speed than accuracy, but then you know that about me already.
todd wrote:In my mind there should be no point in any stage where a competitor even considers taking a penalty to save time.
This all comes down to good stage design. The IDPA "FTDR" is a bad rule, IMHO, as it is wide open to subjective interpretation and breeds ill feeling. IPSC addresses this by imposing a "failure to engage" penalty and/or a "procedural" penalty on top of the "miss" penalty. This, plus thoughtful stage design really should prevent more occurences. Again, this is part of the freestyle IPSC culture.
todd wrote:I like the normalization idea but I do not follow how the plus time method oubalances things. Each person has the same chance to do well on each run. Screwing up on a larger stage would put you in the dog house with either scoring method. Either you endup with a couple hundred points more with normalization or a few minutes more with time
I probably didn't do a great job of explaining the SMM3G scoring system. The idea is that each stage - short or long - can be worth up to 100 points. An 8-stage match, then, would theoretically have 800 points available. This limits your exposure in any single stage.

Here is an example of how this scoring system would limit your misery in the case of a major snafu: lets assume you had a MONSTER gun meltdown on one stage, and took 400 seconds to shoot a stage that the stage winner shot in 10 seconds. Your score for that stage would be 100x(10/400), or only 2.50 points - pretty much zero for the stage. You would probably drop way down the scoresheet, to be sure, but you would not be completely out of the running as you exposure is limited to zeroing only that one stage. If you went on to win every other stage (100 points x 7 stages) your final score would be 702.5, which would likely place you close to the top. In other words, you would still have a chance to claw your way back if your skill merited such an outcome. On the other hand, if you were scoring traditional "time-plus", that single 400 second stage would likely push you right to the bottom of the whole match, despite winning every other stage - hardly a just outcome, I hope you will agree.

Does this explanation make sense ?

todd wrote:In retrospect after mulling it over for a week I think all AD's should be match DQ's ...
Repeat after me "Stealthy is NEVER wrong ! Stealthy is NEVER wrong !..."

Icer
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:09 pm
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Lake Tahoe, Nevada

Post by Icer » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:15 am

Here is an example of how this scoring system would limit your misery in the case of a major snafu: lets assume you had a MONSTER gun meltdown on one stage, and took 400 seconds to shoot a stage that the stage winner shot in 10 seconds. Your score for that stage would be 100x(10/400), or only 2.50 points - pretty much zero for the stage. You would probably drop way down the scoresheet, to be sure, but you would not be completely out of the running a s you exposure is limited to zeroing only that one stage. If you went on to win every other stage (100 points x 7 stages) your final score would be 702.5, which would likely place you close to the top. In other words, you would still have a chance to claw your way back if your skill merited such an outcome. On the other hand, if you were scoring traditional "time-plus", that single 400 second stage would likely push you right to the bottom of the whole match, despite winning every other stage - hardly a just outcome, I hope you will agree.

Great explanation and exactly why I'd love to see it adopted.

---Icer

User avatar
todd
Site Admin
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:11 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Miami Beach, Florida USA
Contact:

Post by todd » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:45 am

For a guywho is constantly wrong Stealthy I like the example you put and I think that is a great way to score matches. I agree :shock:

Now as far as not limiting shooting positions etc... Lets agree to allow shooters choice as much as possible as to their preferred technique to accomplish the same end result. (even if yours is slower) :twisted:

Re: Speed vs Accuracy my thought is you can have both and one should not allow one to suffer to gain the other. The perfect speed is balance of the two where you hit everything you are aiming at where you are aiming right?

FTDR is something that I would hate to impliment due to the possible subjectivity of the application of penalties. If all COF have a review process which ensures the design is solid it could be done without. Another option is a penalty for simply "failure to engage" which would be lumped on top of a failure to neutralize so +20 for that target. (or +5 for fail to engage). I still get tunnel vision from time to time when I shoot and this would nail me time and time again when I run by targets but I see it as a good thing since the negative reinforcement for rushing would help me slow down and break the tunnel vision and look around.

Say this 10 times before you go to bed tonight:
Todd is right and indirect fire and point shooting are viable skills. :lol:
You'll come around...

VegasSMG
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:04 am
What number appears twice below: 0
Location: Vegas baby!
Contact:

Post by VegasSMG » Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:28 pm

I watched as Icer intentionally blew right past a target at the AZ State match. It was only a +5 penalty for what was one paper point shooting target that required five hits. IMHO, he did the right thing as there was no rule to prevent him from gaming the COF in that manner. I saw many people waste too much time and ammo trying to put 5 hits on paper with un-aimed fire only to pick up the +5 anyway. (like me!) Every penalty and procedural was +5 and there was lots of point/hip shooting.... a very practical application of the submachine gun.

Todd, I think you may have misunderstood me regarding our point scoring system. We require a total of ten points to neutralize rather than eight. That would mean two "A" hits or any combination of hits that equal 10 points OR more. For example, one "A" and two "B" hits would be considered neutralized. We're using rapid fire weapons and it shouldn't be difficult to make certain the bad guy is dead. It also encourages accuracy but not at the expense of speed unless you get real sloppy, and the "B" zone really gives you a large target. This is with aimed fire of course and not with hip or point shooting. Again, we're just kicking all of this around and just because we're doing this in Las Vegas doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do on a nationwide basis. Perhaps a single "A" head shot could be worth 10 points? I really like the idea of a one stop head shot.

FWIW, we also use a +5 bonus from time to time... usually it's an accuracy target like a clay bird at some distance. You can eat up 5 seconds pretty easily trying to knock that off your total time. It always makes for an interesting day to see how each person handles the bonus on the months when we have it. Should +5 be the number for any bonus awarded in a match?

What about penalties for multiple subgun use? I know the NFA rules list a +10 penalty for the 2nd gun, but my feeling is the subsequent +5 for each additional gun is too high and probably unrealistic. Todd, I respect L34A1 and his abilities as a shooter as well as yours. If you look at both your recent times, do you honestly think there's a 15 or 20 second margin of learning difference reflected in your scores, or is ten about all you'll ever be able to pick up. I feel that plus ten is a good number for all subguns over the first one shot in a match. Maybe +5 for each additional gun after the first. I know most of us here have shot multiple guns at various matches with no penalty so yeah, this would affect most of us. If you shoot 4 classes at Knob Creek and save your best gun for your last run does that make you a better shooter than the guy that only shoots one class? Not at all, and I think most subgunners have a mind set of fair and equal competition and a level playing field. Thoughts?

As far as multiple equipment divisions go, where do you stop? Open bolt, closed bolt, buzz gun, classic, senior, junior, stock, open.... I DO think we need to leave the door open for all these divisions. I love that there's a buzz gun class at Rio Salado and I think it's a great idea! Many area matches have a classic division and it's wonderful to see old subguns and I don't want to exclude them. I've never seen so many Thompsons as I did in at the ISSMC this year! I doubt many will share my opinion, but if I had to pick, I'd go with just open and stock. To expand on this, and again I doubt this will be popular, ANY modified gun, (i.e. the Lage MAX-11, BarrelXchange Mini Uzi heavy bolt), or any ultra high capacity magazine would automatically be placed in the open division regardless of optics use. These are open guns IMHO, whether or not current rules allow their use in stock division. Again, just my thoughts and I'd be interested in your views.

Blagga, I've engaged in back channel discussions with Todd, and I actually agree with you to some extent on not re-inventing the wheel. I also informed him of your country of origin which of course explains why you're always right even when you're wrong. :wink:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests