KSTG

[LittleLebowski]

I'd run plastic stock Glock sights before I would use XS Big Dot sights. :)

Yup.

[fuse]

I will state upfront that while I definitely do not consider myself militant on the subject of disallowing of the Glock 34 in this game, I was not super pleased either, as I was planning on running my 34 (just got my G34 Shaggy!) in all my practice, training, carrying, and competition this year. Due to my ability to participate in these KTSG matches, combined with my marked inability to shoot more than 1 gun well at a time, I'll be rocking my G17 for everything indefinitely.

and so here are my thoughts on what I perceive the spirit of KSTG to be and its relationship to 'competition' guns.

Similar to what Chris Rhines said here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2330-KSTG&p=42385&viewfull=1#post42385), I don't think the thing to focus on is .31'' over 5'' of barrel length. Rather, as this is meant to be a CCW match, I believe emphasis should be made on carry method.

So how do people carry guns, concealed, in the real world? Most carry mouse guns/J frames in pocket holsters, a few use ankle or shoulder holsters, and most readers here carry true G19/G17 sized service pistols in some form of IWB.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems very few people attempt to conceal carry a full-sized service pistol OWB, in the real world, while living their everyday lives and wearing normal everyday clothes. If so, I highly doubt the majority of these people can or would do so 12 months a year.

In order to make the rules more realistic of what most commonly goes on in real life, I believe there should be a given size limit for guns carried OWB, and a different limit for those carried IWB. Note that this would not change the concealment requirements.

Without getting into specifics and just off the top of my head, I would ban anything larger than a G19 if the competitor is using an OWB holster. If that same competitor uses an IWB holster (and still abiding by the concealment requirements) a 34 would be good to go. After all, the aspect that affects concealment is grip, not slide, and a 34 is just a 17 whose slide is simply .82'' longer.

In laymen's terms:
Dude shows up with a G34 in a kydex open top OWB rig = clear and obvious IDPA gamer set up, not welcome in this game

vs.

Dude shows up with a G34 in a shaggy AIWB = someone like OrigamiAK, C.R., et al. Someone who this game was made for. Someone you do not want to try and harm. Good to go for this game.

This proposal may sound completely arbitrary. I believe its a very subjective yet logical attempt to force the participants to imitate reality and not the other way around, and is a more accurate reflection of real world every day concealed carry practices of the vast majority.

It would indeed require a complete rewriting of the rules, though.

Coming from the game designers point of view, I certainly understand where you're coming from.

For me, in the real world, (yes, it cuts both ways) .82'' of barrel is definitely not going to be the difference between me winning 1st or 2nd place, and the G17 is among the most shootable pistols out there.

Still, I did want to shoot my G34 this year. Stuffing 5.31 inches of barrel down the front of one's pants and then whipping it out is just,...awesome.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNRl3pMF6y8He2MmBXW49U8Ds08gU5j fzQiCTp7Cocul9OTrO95UfLBr6v

[BN]

A Glock 34 is almost the same size as a 5 inch 1911 only it weighs less. And, they both fit the box. Just sayin'. ;)
I don't own a G-34.

[kle]

Still, I did want to shoot my G34 this year. Stuffing 5.31 inches of barrel down the front of one's pants and then whipping it out is just,...awesome.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNRl3pMF6y8He2MmBXW49U8Ds08gU5j fzQiCTp7Cocul9OTrO95UfLBr6v

Better picture:

http://i.imgur.com/Mq7Zg.jpg


A Glock 34 is almost the same size as a 5 inch 1911 only it weighs less. And, they both fit the box. Just sayin'. ;)
I don't own a G-34.

I was under the impression that both the G34 and the 5" 1911 don't fit in the KSTG 'box'.

[BN]

I was under the impression that both the G34 and the 5" 1911 don't fit in the KSTG 'box'.

The KSTG box is the same size as the IDPA box and a 5 inch 1911 fits just fine. :)

[ToddG]

Anyone who is still arguing about the G34 based on size clearly hasn't read the repeated explanation that we've given about why we made the decision to keep the G34 out.

[Nate]

I fully understand the rationale behind the rule regarding the G34, but it does put me in the somewhat odd situation of considering buying a G26 so I can play along. The G26 would be my "gamer gun" whereas the G34 is my carry gun... go figure. :p

I had been carrying a Para P12 for a while, but wanted to try something else, and give IDPA a go, too. Also, about the same time, I finally got over my irrational dislike of Glock pistols. I got a G34 to test the waters, and I haven't carried the Para since. The G19 seems a poor tradeoff for me (big hands use up almost all the 17 sized grip and hang off the bottom of a 19), a 17 isn't enough of a change from a 34 (the shorter barrel wouldn't carry enough better) for me to run out and buy one. But a 26, I could justify one of these days.

Anyway... I hope to make it to one of the KTSG matches one of these days, even if just to watch the one coming up.

[Jay Cunningham]

I have an irresistible urge to buy a Glock 34 now.

[abu fitna]

[QUOTE=ToddG;42668]Awesome. Talking to SLG yesterday, he said almost the exact same thing when I asked about having a "really tiny ccw gun" special award like we do for revos and DA pistols. His response was very similar to yours: we want to encourage people to use their everyday carry gear, but we'd also like to encourage people to use the most capable everyday carry gear. So if the guy with a PPS or j-frame decides after a while to give that humongous G19 a try and realizes, hey, I can conceal this! That's a victory for us.


---

Revisiting this, and the discussions around the Glock 34 platform, has raised an interesting question. Is this a competition that is intending to force participants into a single view of the "right" weapons choice, carry option, and tactical approach; or does this remain a vehicle by which folks test their own choices, and by which we as a collective group learn from comparison and experimentation under a range of simulated tactical conditions? (One would note that this latter objective was the original intent of many tactical shooting matches, all the way back to the Big Bear events.) The problems of gamesmanship come from points in time when the needed limitations imposed by simulation create conditions which a single seam (or set of margins) can be exploited for consistent advantage, in a manner inconsistent with findings under actual field conditions (as opposed to advantage offered by improvement in skills, equipment, or approach that does translate well to the field and are subsequently validated in actual operational circumstances.)

For the record, I have carried the Glock 19 concealed routinely in the past, including in heat up to 130 degrees. The choice of a smaller executive gun for a range of situations is one of optimization against other tradeoffs, accepting penalty of performance. Competition there serves to test certain non-obvious design questions, such as the unusual rear "hook" mag plate on the PPS, and the different hinge point of leverage on the mag release flap which changes reload behaviors under stress even in comparison to other flap designs such as the HK. Useful lessons learned, and worth adding to the body of knowledge for training purposes and field improvement.

I don't know that "normalizing" a baseline to a different set of preferences (for the Glock 19 envelope, or a specific carry method like AIWB) is something that can be considered a victory; just as encouraging folks to drop down a size from the larger platforms to the more compact options likewise does not serve to reduce gaming - but merely changes the margin at which perceived advantage is offered.

I for one favour rules that emphasize the kind of experimentation and learning that the unique venue of a competition like this could drive. I think it not only makes for a more interesting kind of match, but adds to the value that this kind of event brings to the shooting community as a whole, and to individual shooters who seek to explore their performance under a range of conditions in order to mature their own skillsets and better define their own choices for the field. Safety, match efficiency, and practical considerations may limit the range of viable test scenarios (and thus impose understandable restrictions on things like shoulder, cavalry draw, or SOB carry). Known outcomes are likewise less interesting; and thus the heart of my personal objections to gaming - there are plenty of venues for open divisions with weapons builds never seen in the field, and the benefits in the hands of the skilled and less skilled alike are well demonstrated (and the question merely becomes "how much better). But within the range of scenarios in which uncertainty may persist - the ultimate questions of individual and collective performance under the range of conditions common to tactical problems - there remains value in the pursuit of answers.

Perhaps this is not a common outlook on competition. But I find it worth discussing...

[ToddG]

The problem with "vehicle for experimentation" approaches is that it leads to exactly what we've seen in USPSA and IDPA: certain specific options in terms of holster and gun that dominate. When lots of companies make guns with 5" barrels but only one makes a gun with a 5.3" barrel, and people believe that the longer barrel provides a competitive advantage, then the one 5.3" bbl gun becomes over-represented.

It's just like limiting mag capacity to 10. Our goal is to make sure that the guy with a 17rd magazine doesn't have an advantage over the guy with a 15rd magazine, because if such an advantage existed it would skew people's choices and the 17rd gun would be seen as necessary.

There will always be people who want their less-than-optimal guns to be more competitive and people who want their beyond-the-rules guns to be allowed. Like every other game, we have to draw lines somewhere. We're very comfortable about the lines we've drawn for this game, and luckily for people who want to shoot a G34, there are plenty of other games available.

[abu fitna]

The problem with "vehicle for experimentation" approaches is that it leads to exactly what we've seen in USPSA and IDPA: certain specific options in terms of holster and gun that dominate. When lots of companies make guns with 5" barrels but only one makes a gun with a 5.3" barrel, and people believe that the longer barrel provides a competitive advantage, then the one 5.3" bbl gun becomes over-represented.

It's just like limiting mag capacity to 10. Our goal is to make sure that the guy with a 17rd magazine doesn't have an advantage over the guy with a 15rd magazine, because if such an advantage existed it would skew people's choices and the 17rd gun would be seen as necessary.

There will always be people who want their less-than-optimal guns to be more competitive and people who want their beyond-the-rules guns to be allowed. Like every other game, we have to draw lines somewhere. We're very comfortable about the lines we've drawn for this game, and luckily for people who want to shoot a G34, there are plenty of other games available.

---

I would agree that a dominant holster and gun combination is uninteresting from both an experimentation and a competition perspective. It is one of the reasons why I have not liked many of the other contemporary formats; not least of which because they harden belief structures around models that may not be sufficiently flexible to adapt across a wide enough range of tactical problems to be effectively useful for skills transfer.

I guess there is no getting around the min/max problem of rulesets that define "optimal", at least insofar as shooters select from a wide market on their own perceptions of marginal advantage. This eliminates a wide range of the scenarios in which a competition format like this would be useful for transferable lessons learned. But it still is likely to remain fun, and I will happily participate, even if the event continues to look like a Blackwater convention in Mansur, given all the tactical vests over OWB's. (Hell, having a whole closet full already, it makes tactical fashion choices easier...)

I shall nonetheless remain on my perhaps impossible quest to find that experimentation platform at scale. Then again, perhaps one day we will also see sub-minor class options for all the folks that routinely find themselves with Makarovs, Browning BDAs or at best case Glock 25's, in countries that restrict "military" ammunition calibers or in other situations where nonstandard arms are the rule of the day. (Not to mention the range of modern 380's used for EDC here domestically by so many folks). But the odds of that happening are probably as likely as seeing stages with condition 3 starts, or common range design that would allow safe use of other than strong side holsters.

However, it should definitely be acknowledged that you have moved the concept of a tactical game forward quite a bit here. I am looking forward to seeing this thing as it matures and grows. Thanks for the debate, and the venue.

[ChrisG]

What is the acceptable starting position for stages that do not specify a position (surrender, seated, etc.), and specifically for the classifier stage. I've searched the rulebook and this thread and didn't see it spelled out (apologies if I missed it). The FAST Drill specifies "shooter facing downrange in relaxed stance with arms down at sides". In practice, the preferred starting position for the FAST is a wider than shoulder width stance with an aggressive crouch and the arms hanging somewhat to the shooter's front, with the hands resting on or near the front of the thighs. Is this an acceptable starting position for the classifier? For other stages?

[ToddG]

Generally, the instruction for the classifier is a good assumption for any stage that doesn't specifically dictate start position.

Because there are so many aiwb folks in KSTG, the hand position has become sort of permissive... that's something we should probably address. I know we talked at one point about having the rule be that the hands couldn't be farther forward than the front of the leg.

Foot position, etc. are usually shooter's choice unless specified.

[ChrisG]

So is the aggressive crouch acceptable as well? Level of the eyes at or below the level of the nipple-line when standing erect?
ETA: "phrasing", before anyone else says it.

[ToddG]

I can't think of a match I've been to -- IDPA, USPSA, etc -- where they told me I had to be standing straight up before the buzzer went off. It would be far too hard to judge how much slouch/crouch was acceptable.

[PPGMD]

I can't think of a match I've been to -- IDPA, USPSA, etc -- where they told me I had to be standing straight up before the buzzer went off. It would be far too hard to judge how much slouch/crouch was acceptable.

Honestly I don't think it's too big of an issue, even the women shooters (who typically have a more aggressive forward lean while shooting then men) don't really lean while waiting for the buzzer. IMO people seem to care more about the direction they are facing, with good leg, and head position then leaning over into an aggressive shooting position. Now there are exceptions, but I've rarely seen them both in person and on the interwebs.

The only exception is some positions like seated, they often specify hands on the table, or back against the back of the chair. Otherwise people will position themselves in such a way that they can take off from the chair quickly, but with just enough of their rear on the chair that they are technically seated.

[Chris Rhines]

I can't think of a match I've been to -- IDPA, USPSA, etc -- where they told me I had to be standing straight up before the buzzer went off. It would be far too hard to judge how much slouch/crouch was acceptable. Heh. Maryland State IDPA Championships, 2007. I was 'corrected' by the RO on the first stage for crouching too much. That experience probably had something to do with my 5+ year layoff from IDPA.

What's especially funny, is that my 'aggressive crouch' would probably be called 'a very mild forward lean' by PTF standards... :rolleyes:

-C

[ChrisG]

So is the aggressive crouch acceptable as well? Level of the eyes at or below the level of the nipple-line when standing erect?
ETA: "phrasing", before anyone else says it.

I had it come up at a match once, hence the question. RO said my stance wasn't relaxed enough.
Thanks for the clarification.

[ToddG]

There are two approaches you could take:

#1: Ask why the stage requires people to be in an upright stance at the start, which gives many shooters (who stand upright) an advantage over lots of other shooters (who lean or crouch). It's ridiculous.

#2: Lean/crouch/etc as you reach for the gun, and the difference will be so minimal as to be noise in terms of your overall performance.

#2 is probably by far the smarter and easier choice.

[ChrisG]

There are two approaches you could take:

#1: Ask why the stage requires people to be in an upright stance at the start, which gives many shooters (who stand upright) an advantage over lots of other shooters (who lean or crouch). It's ridiculous.

#2: Lean/crouch/etc as you reach for the gun, and the difference will be so minimal as to be noise in terms of your overall performance.

#2 is probably by far the smarter and easier choice.

#2 was what I chose at the time, followed by #3: request rules clarification on forum run by dude who wrote the rule book. :)

[PPGMD]

This came to me yesterday as I was working on my 1911.

Under the KSTG rules the 1911 is illegal. As the actual 1911 barrel length is just a tad over 5". As the official barrel length is 5.03" with some factory barrels even goes as far as 5.11" (in the case of many STIs).

[JV_]

Interesting. I'm in favor of bumping it to < 5.32"

[JSGlock34]

Funny - just today I was scoping a decent deal on a 6" Bar-Sto 1911 barrel and was looking up the exact length in order to cut it to the 5" government length (decided to pass). I saw the barrel length listed as 5.03 inches in a few sources...


Interesting. I'm in favor of bumping it to < 5.32"

Count me in.

[PPGMD]

Interesting. I'm in favor of bumping it to < 5.32"

I would agree, since going from 5.11" to 5.31" is not a huge jump.

Really I think the box or simply a total length gauge wouldn't be a bad idea, since that factors in total dimensions or length of the gun. For example I would argue that an P229R Elite is arguable as concealable as a P226R as the beaver tail increases the total length.

So in that vein I would argue that a Glock 34 at 8.81" is just as concealable as a full size 1911 with extended beaver tail at 8.7". Heck I would argue at half almost half the weight that the Glock 34 is more practical.

[ToddG]

Considering that all the major manufacturers list their full size Gov't Model 1911 barrels at 5", if we need to make some allowance for that we can.

The G34 thing has been discussed to death and while we certainly have no problem with folks continuing to voice their opinions about it, our reasoning hasn't changed and neither has our decision. Addressing other things -- concealability, weight, etc. -- doesn't change that.

[John Hearne]

Any KSTG in December?

[JV_]

It's scheduled for New Years Eve.

[KevinB]

It's scheduled for New Years Eve.

FAIL...

But, I'll go as my only friends will probably be there too.

[ToddG]

It's going to be a fun match!

[KevinB]

It's going to be a fun match!

I'll call you later about this, and a few other things.

[ToddG]

I'll call you later about this, and a few other things.

Free SR15 for each competitor? :cool:

[LittleLebowski]

Free SR15 for each competitor? :cool:

You didn't get yours yet?

[ToddG]

You didn't get yours yet?

I may have and just not recognized it. You know me and rifles.

[LittleLebowski]

Excellent match! Thanks for the SR15, KevinB!

[JDM]

Excellent match! Thanks for the SR15, KevinB!

No SR25, No care. :D

[LittleLebowski]

No SR25, No care. :D

You should have gotten your SR-25 in by now. It's a forum Staff perk. PM Kevin.

[KevinB]

LOL -- Thanks for the excellent match -- and HAPPY NEW YEAR

[ToddG]

Thanks again for the help, guys. Couldn't have done it without you.

[KevinB]

Since I beat LLB, I had to cancel the SR-15 give away, sorry.

:cool:

[ToddG]

Since I beat LLB, I had to cancel the SR-15 give away, sorry.

Maybe you can get him a full sponsorship from Knight's, though. That would mean a hat and a hand guard, right? :cool:

[LittleLebowski]

Since I beat LLB, I had to cancel the SR-15 give away, sorry.

:cool:

You still owe me one from the last match we both shot :cool:

[CoThG]

My local range just cancelled it's first KSTG match. Bummed, as I wanted to see what it was all about.

[jayh]

Is this still a thing? I see the "HQ" side has not been updated in a while :\

Recently found this and looking to play a bit more. I looked on the NRA website, and have no idea how to register for the match, if it is still going. It's on the calendar. Any help would be great!

Thanks!
-Jay

[JV_]

The 2015 match schedule for KSTG at the NRA is here:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13537-KSTG-at-NRA-2015-Schedule

Generally, two weeks before the Tuesday match, you'll see a post in the regional training section:
https://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?49-Regional-Training

like this one:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?14979-KSTG-NRA-17-Feb-2015

And you'll call the range to reserve a slot.