KSTG

[ToddG]

RESULTS OF THE 27-December MATCH AT THE NRA CAN BE FOUND BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2326-World-Championship-27-Dec-11&p=42086#post42086)

Draft rules. Subject to change without notice.

Obviously, this is not meant to take over the world. It's just something SLG and I came up with a few years ago because there was basically nothing out there that let us do what we wanted at a match. After running an inaugural/beta-test match in '09 we made some needed rule changes that backed off on some of the "tactical" stuff to make the game less subjective and, hopefully, more fun.

Download the rules at this link:365

[JodyH]

Out local club has been running a set of "CCW Match" rules for two years now with great success.
They're based on the failed IDSA matches and are basically a mix of IPSC Limited with some IDPA "light" thrown in.
Scoring is all time based so the results can be figured in about 10 minutes with a calculator.
I can email you a .pdf of our latest "revision in progress" if you'd like to look them over.

[DonovanM]

Perfect. I'd play.

[ToddG]

JodyH -- absolutely!

Donovan -- thanks.

[TheRoland]

I'd totally play this, with my carry gear, which is probably as intended.

So far, I have just one quick question: why no .45 Colt or .45ACP revolvers allowed? Smith makes one or two 325 models that are legitimate carry-guns.

Is the rule just intended to discourage moon-clips?

[MechEng]

Excellent! I like the use of FAST as a simple classifier. I’m interested.

[JeffJ]

This looks great, if the Tiger Teams come anywhere close to this, IDPA will be much better (might want to TM it and then send them a copy ;)) One thing I noticed/ didn't understand - C zone hits are better than B zone hits?

If I lived anywhere close to VA, I'd be in

[ToddG]

Please keep comments and questions about the rules coming.

To give you just a little bit of background: SLG and I attended a major pistol match together a few years back and came away frustrated by a variety of problems. We'd shot quite a bit of USPSA and IDPA together and during the long drive home began brainstorming "what we would change if we were in charge." Over the next few weeks, more as a thought experiment than anything else, we decided to build our own rulebook. We never really had much expectation that it would ever go anywhere, which is why lots of the organizational/admin stuff is missing from the book at present.

Because we had no budget to create a new target, we used an existing target (IDPA) and simply stapled a 3x5 onto the head as a more realistic head box. The fact that both SLG and I were regularly shooting the F.A.S.T. as part of our practice during this time probably wasn't a coincidence.

We spent a ton of time trying to figure out a scoring scheme. To be honest, I am not happy with the result. It is basically surrendering to the desire many people have for easily calculated results. We originally came up with two different approaches for Major/minor scoring:


Have a 7" circle A-zone for minor, and an 8" A-zone for major; this would give folks shooting Major a small advantage but not so much that you'd have good reason to choose one over the other; the problem is that it would require a new target. Or,
Have a 1-second penalty per point down for Major, and 1.1 seconds per point for minor; the problem is that the math gets harder and the scorekeeper needs to keep a shooter's PF in mind for each stage score calculation.


At the same time, we felt a need to give people using major-caliber guns (cops with their duty gun, CCWers who use .40s or .45s) something worthwhile so not everyone would feel obligated to shoot 9mm. For now, we've just gone the "Top Major" award.

Also on scoring, I'd much prefer to weight each stage equally. Right now, a short stage can be almost meaningless in an IDPA (or KSTG) match. If the best guy and the worst guy are only separated by a second or two, it becomes mere noise in the overall score at a major match. What I wanted to do was have each stage equal by listing shooters by stage rank, then for your "match score" all your stage ranks were added together and the guy with the lowest number won. E.g.:

Shooter-A comes in first place (1 point) on Stage One, second place (2 points) on Stage Two, and tenth place (10 points) on Stage Three.
Shooter-B comes in third place (3 points) on all three stages.
Shooter-A has a total of 13 "stage points" and Shooter-B has a total of 9, so Shooter-B wins.

There are two negatives to scoring that way. First and most importantly, it means you either need to have a computer do it for you or you're going to spend a lot of time doing math by hand... especially at a major match where each stage could have hundreds of shooters. Second, it makes the actual separation in a given stage meaningless. It wouldn't matter whether you came in first place by one second or a hundred, you still get 1 point and the guy behind you gets 2.

We ran an inaugural match with some experienced shooters (including some national/world champion IDPA and IPSC shooters) in '09. Based on that we made a number of changes. For example, we initially had a requirement that before holstering at the end of each stage, the shooter had to do a scan or suffer a procedural penalty. That was a sincere rule, but we quickly found that even a bunch of tactical-minded guys have a very hard time breaking the unload and show clear habit when they're in an actual square range competition. We also originally had an IDPA-style cover rule and unanimously the "beta testers" wanted it thrown out. During the inaugural match I (as RO) gave a competitor, part of a high profile full time tactical team, a cover penalty. It led to a long discussion about subjectivity in rules and so we decided to give the fault lines thing a try.

That reminds me, something that I noticed fell out of the version posted online but is meant to be there: When shooting from cover in a standing position, both feet must be on the ground. We don't want any of the silly leaning out on one foot stuff you see in IPSC.

I appreciate the comment on using the F.A.S.T. as a classifier. The thing I like most about it is that it can be a part of any match. If you sign up for a match as a B-class shooter and get an A-class score on the classifier, guess what... you're now competing in A-class. Sucks to be you, sandbagger. (they actually did this same thing with the whole IDPA classifier at the first few years of the S&W Winter Nationals, for anyone who remembers that far back)

Again, we're not expecting this to go anywhere beyond our one local club running matches. To be honest, I'd much prefer to see the IDPA "tiger teams" fix what's broken with the IDPA rulebook -- and allow aiwb!

[jthhapkido]

I don't happen to own a 1911---so I'm just curious. Will most carry 1911s have a trigger pull weight above 4 pounds?

[ToddG]

So far, I have just one quick question: why no .45 Colt or .45ACP revolvers allowed? Smith makes one or two 325 models that are legitimate carry-guns.

Candidly, I do not remember our rationale beyond thinking no one really CCWs a .45 revolver.


One thing I noticed/ didn't understand - C zone hits are better than B zone hits?

Correct. We didn't want to change the names of the zones -- that just makes things confusing for people who shoot multiple sports -- but wanted to reflect that there is a big difference between a good head shot and a bad one. Also, by making the B-zone a 2sec penalty and the C-zone a 1sec penalty, the F.A.S.T. scoring works out. That's purely a coincidence, I'm sure. :cool:


I don't happen to own a 1911---so I'm just curious. Will most carry 1911s have a trigger pull weight above 4 pounds?

Most will, yes. The primary point was to discourage people from having dangerously light triggers. We've both been to matches where people bragged about their 1.5# Glock or 1911 triggers, and wanted nothing to do with it.

[TheRoland]

Candidly, I do not remember our rationale beyond thinking no one really CCWs a .45 revolver.

In .45ACP, the N-Frame S&W 325 Nightguard (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765946_-1_757773_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y) is probably more reasonable in practice than the 4" 686s that dominate. I'm not sure how, or if there's a desire, to include short N-frames while excluding the less practical 4" 625s.

With the unfortunate advent of the Judge and the Governor, Speer is probably selling more of their Gold Dot .45 Colt load, too. Excluding these shooters might not be a bad thing, though ;).



I don't happen to own a 1911---so I'm just curious. Will most carry 1911s have a trigger pull weight above 4 pounds?

I carried 1911s before switching to polymer, and my carry 1911s will not all make four pounds. But the majority will.

[BN]

Hi Todd,

Looks like fun. :)

Some things I noticed. Glock 34 and 35 can't play because of the 5" barrel rule??

Will the 41 oz. rule eliminate some of the steel SIGs?

Some (probably a lot) of revolvers won't fit the box. A 4" S&W K-Frame round butt with the small factory grips will barely fit. A S&W K-Frame square butt revolver probably won't fit at all. Almost any aftermarket grips will keep them from fitting.

Power factor might be pretty tough to make in 38 Special. I was loading to 825-850 fps with a 158 bullet to make the old IDPA factor of 125 with a cushion and that was up into plusP range.

Good luck, :)

Bill

[ToddG]

Glock 34 and 35 can't play because of the 5" barrel rule??

Correct.


Will the 41 oz. rule eliminate some of the steel SIGs?

It may.


Some (probably a lot) of revolvers won't fit the box. A 4" S&W K-Frame round butt with the small factory grips will barely fit. A S&W K-Frame square butt revolver probably won't fit at all. Almost any aftermarket grips will keep them from fitting.

The thought process was: if it would be too big as a semiauto, how is it not too big as a revolver? So if we increase the dimensions for revolvers, we have to increase it for all guns. The number of people I know who CCW a 4" revolver (or G34/G35) is very small. Not zero, but they are definitely outliers. As with any game, if we try to accommodate all the outliers for people who honestly truly swear-to-God carry gun XYZ, it widens the gap between the typical CCW guy and the gamer who gets a gun that just barely fits within the rules. That's how the G34/G35 came into being... they were designed specifically to be as big as possible but still fit inside the IDPA box.


Power factor might be pretty tough to make in 38 Special. I was loading to 825-850 fps with a 158 bullet to make the old IDPA factor of 125 with a cushion and that was up into plusP range.

Speaking only for myself, given how many people do in fact have to resort to +p loads in their .38 Specials for defensive use, I don't see that as a bad thing. If a 110PF or 250 ft-lbs load is "good enough" in a .38, why not a 9mm? Why not allow a .380? Etc. It's easy to slide down that slope.

Please don't take any of these comments as final. I'm just trying to provide responses to questions about where our minds were when we wrote this stuff 2+ years ago. If things need to change, we're certainly willing to make good changes.

[BN]

Todd,

Thanks for the quick answers.

I don't carry a revolver but I've been known to play around with them. :)

Bill

[TheRoland]

Speaking only for myself, given how many people do in fact have to resort to +p loads in their .38 Specials for defensive use, I don't see that as a bad thing. If a 110PF or 250 ft-lbs load is "good enough" in a .38, why not a 9mm? Why not allow a .380? Etc. It's easy to slide down that slope.


I'm sure you're well aware of the counter-argument here, which is that people who do not reload .38 will find it very difficult to play with a wheelgun.

I think the box actually solves my concern about .45ACP revolvers, if the caliber was allowed. Without measuring, I think a short 325 might fit, but a 4" 625 almost certainly will not.

[BN]

I have an old S&W 25-2 that has had the barrel cut back to 4" and the grip frame round butted. With the small factory wood grips it will fit an IDPA box. I think the 325 will fit fine. The 625 might but someone would have to try it because it will be very close.

[jar]

I like the reload under fire rule a lot. I hope IDPA goes in this direction. One question on that, the rule is in effect when exposed to any target not neutralized, not any target not engaged. This makes sense to me, but it may be difficult to enforce accurately. If you find an FTN when scoring the targets, you have to remember where the reload was to see if there's a penalty.

I'm not sure what a better solution to the major/minor situation is, but I don't think 'high major' will prevent the situation where everyone who wants to be competitive shoots 9mm.

I understand the intent of the power floor rules, but the fact that I'd have to make up a special load would make me less likely to shoot a KTSG match.

Can I build up bigass bumps on the side of the grip panels to allow me to use a full size magwell?

Why exclude calibers like 38 super or 9x21? I don't see any competitive advantage, and those are common defensive calibers in countries with wacky laws.

I don't like requiring the shooter to indicate that he's ready. I prefer the USPSA way of only issuing 'are you ready' when the shooter is in the start position and continuing to standby if he doesn't move out of the start position or otherwise indicate not ready. Similarly, I prefer 'If you are finished, unload and show clear'. As an RO/SO, I don't want to be in the position of a shooter saying you made me unload, but I was going to pick up that missed headshot I saw. The lack of hammer down seems like a difference for the sake of one to me, but that's probably because I'm a gamer through and through.

Am I reading correctly that I can load a gun in a safe area as long as I arrive at the next stage with it unloaded? That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

[turbolag23]

Todd,

For clarification, the following rule would disqualify "C" model Glocks correct?


3. Barrel: 5 inches maximum, no porting or compensators allowed.

[Skold]

I don't like requiring the shooter to indicate that he's ready. I prefer the USPSA way of only issuing 'are you ready' when the shooter is in the start position and continuing to standby if he doesn't move out of the start position or otherwise indicate not ready. Similarly, I prefer 'If you are finished, unload and show clear'. As an RO/SO, I don't want to be in the position of a shooter saying you made me unload, but I was going to pick up that missed headshot I saw. The lack of hammer down seems like a difference for the sake of one to me, but that's probably because I'm a gamer through and through.

From reading your comment, when starting the same argument can be made as the if shooter is finished unload and show clear. If the shooter is not ready at the beginning and some SO's just love to quick buzz you, you really might not be ready....I'd say that's worse than at the end where they normally only say unload and show clear when you have stopped shooting and appear to be done. Not attacking you or anyone, it was just a thought.

[jetfire]

Now to construct the ultimate KSTG gamer gun!

[jar]

If you're not ready, don't assume the start position. I simply keep my hand on my gun until I'm ready. I find short buzzing to be much more of a problem when I have to respond to are you ready. I get standby-beep while I'm resetting from responding. I've gotten better at it because some SOs seem to be stuck on requiring a response. This is all personal preference stuff, but I think the USPSA rules are the way they are because it tends to be the preference of those who care enough to be involved with rulemaking.

[jar]

Now to construct the ultimate KSTG gamer gun!

An IPSC modified gun less the comp would be pretty close.

[TheRoland]

I've just realized that a Glock 19 or M&Pc with a slide-mounted RMR should fit in the box, and a full-sized M&P with RMR might get in there, if you're allowed to hammer on it a bit. EDIT: Actually, most practical RMR setups should fit without issue, no?

And that lasers appear legal.

[gringop]

Is it...
A is the 3x5 head card.
B is the rest of the head.
C is the 8" body circle.
D is the -1 body zone.

Or...
A is the 3x5 head card and the 8" body circle.
B is the rest of the head.
C is the -1 body zone.
D is the -3 body zone.


Gringop

[TheRoland]

Clarification on holster retention:

Under what circumstances is this tested? Very few of my kydex IWB holsters will retain a heavy gun without pressure from a belt; most CTACs, for example, won't, unless adjusted to be unserviceably tight.

I'm not running some speed-rig; if you could hang me upside-down with the gun on, retention would be no problem; the gun would be retained. I suspect holding upside-down while applying manual pressure to the holster body would retain it. But holding the holster from the belt-loops won't retain it. Is this unusual?


Similarly, I don't think either of the big-name hybrid holsters will reliably retain without a belt if suspended upside-down from the belt clips.

[JConn]

Well seems simple, we just hang each competitor upside down before the match. Problem solved!

[jar]

Well seems simple, we just hang each competitor upside down before the match. Problem solved!

Just put a stage in the match where you shoot upside down, Top Shot style.

[JodyH]

Our local "CCW Match" scoring is pretty straight forward.
Any 3 zone targets can be used.

IPSC target example:
Major: A and entire head box is 5 points, C is 4, D is 2 points.

Minor: A and head box 5 points, C is 3, D is 1 point.

A total if 8 points are required to neutralize a target. +10 second penalty for failure to neutralize.

Shoot as many shots as you want to.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[jlw]

For observation purposes and not a complaint:

In one way the CCW focus makes the equipment rules easier to a degree; however, I compete in IDPA using duty gear. I also carry on duty, at times, firearms that would not be legal under the current rules. For instance, I carry a S&W 22-4 in .45ACP, and I also sometimes carry a 4" K frame both on and off duty. I also have qualified with my G34 and know quite a few peace officers in my area that carry G35s.

Gearing only towards "CCW" does eliminate duty carry.

If that is the rules then so be it.

[JodyH]

For observation purposes and not a complaint:

In one way the CCW focus makes the equipment rules easier to a degree; however, I compete in IDPA using duty gear. I also carry on duty, at times, firearms that would not be legal under the current rules. For instance, I carry a S&W 22-4 in .45ACP, and I also sometimes carry a 4" K frame both on and off duty. I also have qualified with my G34 and know quite a few peace officers in my area that carry G35s.

Gearing only towards "CCW" does eliminate duty carry.

If that is the rules then so be it.

Our local "CCW Match" has "duty gear in lieu of concealment" for active leo's.
Duty gear is defined as level 2 or greater retention holster and flap magazine carriers.
All retention must be engaged and set to manufacturer specs (no modified retention devices).

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[jlw]

Scoring question:

Are awards being made for the respective power floors? For example, will there be a winner in Major Master and Minor Master?

[jlw]

We have "duty gear in lieu of concealment" for active leo's.
Duty gear is defined as level 2 or greater retention holster and flap magazine carriers.
All retention must be engaged and set to manufacturer specs (no modified retention devices).

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

That eliminates many of my guys and myself as we don't use flap mag carriers

I have guys using these:

http://www.safariland.com/DutyGear/images/catalog/79_l.jpg

these:

http://www.safariland.com/DutyGear/images/catalog/75_l.jpg

and I use Blackhawks that mount to a picitiny system on my belt so that I can easily switch from single to double stack mags.

[JodyH]

That eliminates many of my guys and myself as we don't use flap mag covers.

Can't please everyone and still have a somewhat equal playing field.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[jlw]

Can't please everyone and still have a somewhat equal playing field.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

I edited my post to include pictures of the mag pouches.

I understand that if you don't establish some limits that you will have folks trying to pass of competition stuff as duty gear, but arbitrarily stating flap mag carriers completely eliminates a lot of legitimate duty gear. The two pictures I included are marketed by Safariland as duty gear, and I have been encouraging my guys to go to them and get away from flap carriers.

[TheRoland]

To clarify, JodyH is speaking of another local club's homebrew rule-set, not the draft Kinda-Sorta Tactical Game. Correct?

The KSTG rules seem to specify "complete concealment" in some depth, which would exclude duty gear, probably by intent. Even ye olde fishing vest sounds marginal or not allowed.

[jlw]

To clarify, JodyH is speaking of another local club's homebrew rule-set, not the draft Kinda-Sorta Tactical Game. Correct?

The KSTG rules seem to specify "complete concealment" in some depth, which would exclude duty gear, probably by intent. Even ye olde fishing vest sounds marginal or not allowed.

Thanks for the clarification. I can edit/delete my responses then as I don't want to muddy the waters like that. I took the "we" in his response to be as speaking for KSTG.

[DonovanM]

Instead of separate scoring rings and/or distinctions, how about people shooting Minor get 10% added to their final score? That's about what it calculates to in USPSA match points, according to Matt Burkett who tried shooting Minor at a Limited championship and ended up like 4th or 5th.

[JodyH]

Thanks for the clarification. I can edit/delete my responses then as I don't want to muddy the waters like that. I took the "we" in his response to be as speaking for KSTG.
I'm sorry for the confusion, I'll edit my post to show that I'm speaking of our local IDSA based rules.

[JodyH]

I understand that if you don't establish some limits that you will have folks trying to pass of competition stuff as duty gear, but arbitrarily stating flap mag carriers completely eliminates a lot of legitimate duty gear. The two pictures I included are marketed by Safariland as duty gear, and I have been encouraging my guys to go to them and get away from flap carriers.

Prior to this rule going into effect in our "CCW Match" I watched one shooters gear slowly evolve/morph from typical duty gear to basically a kydex OWB (disguised as a Safariland 6304 with the SLS hood removed and the ALS modified for no retention) and race cut mag carriers.
I think our club is already being generous in that we don't require them to wear their entire "Bat belt", just the holster and mag carriers.
Give 'em an inch and they take a mile...
Besides, LEO's should be carrying off-duty anyway so they can always shoot their CCW gear in the match if their duty gear isn't compatible with the rules.

[JConn]

I think the whole idea of this competition is to stop "competition gear." Walk in, shoot the match, reload holster, walk out. In a perfect world we could hold people to that and make them shoot their everyday carry. People carrying lc9s and pf9s would quickly see the limitations of their equipment, or not who knows.

[JodyH]

I like the idea of optimizing your gear for maximum performance within the limitations of practical concealed carry.
That's one reason I don't shoot IDPA.
Gear that's optimized for concealment, retention and speed (AIWB under a T-shirt) is illegal even though that's the way I carry every day.
Impractical gamer gear (the infamous "Vest") is not only allowed, it's sold in the official IDPA web store.

[jlw]

Prior to this rule going into effect in our "CCW Match" I watched one shooters gear slowly evolve/morph from typical duty gear to basically a kydex OWB (disguised as a Safariland 6304 with the SLS hood removed and the ALS modified for no retention) and race cut mag carriers.
I think our club is already being generous in that we don't require them to wear their entire "Bat belt", just the holster and mag carriers.
Give 'em an inch and they take a mile...
Besides, LEO's should be carrying off-duty anyway so they can always shoot their CCW gear in the match if their duty gear isn't compatible with the rules.

I would enjoy continuing with this topic, but I don't want to muddy the discussion of KSTG.

[JodyH]

I would enjoy continuing with this topic, but I don't want to muddy the discussion of KSTG.
pfffftttt... make the Mods do some thread splitting.
;)

On KSTG.
I like some of the rules (in fact I poached a few ideas for our local match rules) but don't like:
Weight, size, barrel length restrictions (just strictly enforce the concealment requirements/ holster rules and it'll be somewhat self regulating).
Magazine capacity restricted to 10 rounds, instead just have a few categories based on capacity (and limit the categories to guns that are designed for that capacity).
The scoring is needlessly complicated, especially the multiple non-threat penalties.
Fault lines for cover violations, I despise fault lines and boxes.
Air gun/rehearsal penalties are one of those things that end up being subjective and subject to RO (and competitor) abuse, the only time a penalty should be assessed imo is if a competitor activates a prop.
Engagement order should have a "near to far" stipulation.

[fuse]

but don't like:
Weight, size, barrel length restrictions (just strictly enforce the concealment requirements/ holster rules and it'll be somewhat self regulating).


this. Just bought a shaggy for a 34. won't conceal any different than a 17, and I seem to shoot it better.

but rules are rules, and I reckon if one allowed the 34, someone would bitch that their 17L isn't legal.

[DocGKR]

Allow 45 LC, along with .45 ACP for revolvers.

Allow 7 & 8 shot revolvers (I know a fair number of guys who use these for real) if they fit in the box.

Allow 5 & 6" revolver barrels, if they fit in box.

Change scoring to: A-Zone = 5 points, B & C Zones = 1 point, D Zone = zero points to better reflect anatomic an physiologic reality.

HNT = DQ for that stage.

Major and minor PF is BS--a hit in the A-zone is a hit, regardless of caliber. If you really must do it, give 2 points for B & C zone hits to major caliber shooters, rather than just 1 point for minor caliber shooters. D-zone is still a big fat zero.

No DA pistol Specialty Division.

Appendix A--the major and minor Power Floors table is goofy from a wound ballistic perspective.

Cold Ranges SUCK Donkey balls...

[fuse]

A

Cold Ranges SUCK Donkey balls...

Is that the official medical term

[fuse]

Also what is HNT

[Prdator]

So if I read this right I CAN'T play with my G34 or G35?

[jlw]

Allow 45 LC, along with .45 ACP for revolvers.

Allow 7 & 8 shot revolvers (I know a fair number of guys who use these for real) if they fit in the box.



I agree on the .45 Colt issue.

The 7 & 8 shot revolvers do bring up an interesting line of debate though. A person shooting an 8-shooters would have an advantage over a person shooting a 6-shooter on longer stages as it would mean less reloads for that shooter. However, it should be noted that single stack shooters in major will face the same issue compared to somebody shooting a double stack pistol.

That being said, I'm fairly old school when it comes to wheelguns. I don't get bent out of shape over making the single stack folks fret.

[TheRoland]

Major and minor PF is BS--a hit in the A-zone is a hit, regardless of caliber. If you really must do it, give 2 points for B & C zone hits to major caliber shooters, rather than just 1 point for minor caliber shooters. D-zone is still a big fat zero.

In your opinion, would major calibers be measurably less likely to deflect off of flat, hard bone surfaces? If so, that could justify increasing the value of the head's B-zone to match the A or C zones.

As someone who carries a Major caliber, I've long thought this was one of the very few advantages I held, but have not sought out data to confirm or disprove. I'll have to review some of the previous anatomy discussions on this point.


Also what is HNT

Hit on a Non-Threat, typically.

[NickA]

I like the idea of optimizing your gear for maximum performance within the limitations of practical concealed carry.
That's one reason I don't shoot IDPA.
Gear that's optimized for concealment, retention and speed (AIWB under a T-shirt) is illegal even though that's the way I carry every day.
Impractical gamer gear (the infamous "Vest") is not only allowed, it's sold in the official IDPA web store.
IDPA does seem to think most people carry that way (under a vest or open coat). I asked the Tiger Team guy about AIWB possibly being allowed and was pretty much told no way. Not sure if anyone has formally suggested it to the tiger team, but maybe if enough people make enough noise....


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[JeffJ]

A decent number of people do carry that way. Maybe not a tacticool vest, but an open front shirt or jacket - I don't think there is that much difference between the two. I have a 5.11 vest for IDPA because I don't carry that way and I don't have any other vests nor do I want to wear a jacket when its hot - and it has lots of pockets for me to put stuff in that I wouldn't normally carry around, like pasters and ear pro and maybe a bottle of water etc. etc.

I think when you come up with a game the bottom line is that people are going to:
1. Bitch about whichever rule they don't like (hey, I carry a G34 (I really do-all the time) and I can't use it in Todd's new game, so obviously the whole thing is stupid and has no merit and people that shoot it are stupid and in a real fight are going to get killed and blah, blah, blah...)

2. Try to win - I mean that's the point of competition right? That's why there are divisions and classifications so that it's competitive for more people. Not playing to win (even if you aren't going to) isn't doing your best right? Why should you do something if you aren't going to at least try and do your best?

3. Bitch about people who are trying to win, especially if someone does so in a manner that is not consistent with what they think is how they should try to win. IDPA is a magnet for this, especially among people who confuse training with competition



So, I try to look at the game and say - "What are the rules? OK, that sounds fun, I can do that - let's go play" if I said, "What are the rules? Oh, that sounds miserable I won't have any fun doing that." Then I wouldn't go play - this is America, you get to choose.

To me, the KSTG looks like a good, fun, simple game that can be shot with a minimal amount of "down time" - that sounds fun to me, let's go shoot (hypothetically, because I live nowhere near where you're holding the match"

BTW - I also like DocGKR's scoring suggestions

[Mr_White]

I asked the Tiger Team guy about AIWB possibly being allowed and was pretty much told no way. Not sure if anyone has formally suggested it to the tiger team, but maybe if enough people make enough noise....

That's too bad you got such a negative response.

I sent an 'allow AIWB' request to their official email address a few weeks ago.

Not holding my breath.

[ToddG]

I'm not sure what a better solution to the major/minor situation is, but I don't think 'high major' will prevent the situation where everyone who wants to be competitive shoots 9mm.

That's fine, though. If all the "gamers" go out and shoot 9mm, then there will be fewer people in the pool of major-caliber shooters and one of those guys will win the Top Major Caliber award. Again, the min/maj split is solely to give folks who don't want to get a 9mm pistol just for the game a chance to play without feeling put upon.


I understand the intent of the power floor rules, but the fact that I'd have to make up a special load would make me less likely to shoot a KTSG match.

Understandable. If we just used PF, then you could load a .45 to such a silly level that some folks might be able to throw them hard enough to qualify. :cool:

Assuming that KSTG does not soon dwarf the Superbowl in popularity, I doubt many people will ever have to worry about custom loads for it. Just hit the local gunshop and pick up a couple boxes of Anything Off the Shelf in 9mm and you should be good. If you specifically want to or have to load special, then that's on you.


Can I build up bigass bumps on the side of the grip panels to allow me to use a full size magwell?

I'd say yes. If it got abused, the rule may need to be reconsidered.


Why exclude calibers like 38 super or 9x21? I don't see any competitive advantage, and those are common defensive calibers in countries with wacky laws.

I'd put this in the "if it becomes an issue we'll deal with it" column.


I don't like requiring the shooter to indicate that he's ready. I prefer the USPSA way of only issuing 'are you ready' when the shooter is in the start position and continuing to standby if he doesn't move out of the start position or otherwise indicate not ready. Similarly, I prefer 'If you are finished, unload and show clear'.

All I can say is that these rules have been vetted by a number of very high level USPSA and IDPA competitors without any concern over these issues.


The lack of hammer down seems like a difference for the sake of one to me, but that's probably because I'm a gamer through and through.

(1) I've seen more ADs in classes from people doing the "hammer down" than any other problem. It's stupid and unsafe to ask someone to press the trigger to prove a gun is unloaded. You want to prove the gun is unloaded? Show me the chamber and mag well.

(2) You've obviously never shot a match with a pistol equipped with a mag disconnect.


Am I reading correctly that I can load a gun in a safe area as long as I arrive at the next stage with it unloaded? That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

If the rules say that, they shouldn't.



For clarification, the following rule would disqualify "C" model Glocks correct?

Correct.


A is the 3x5 head card and the 8" body circle.
B is the rest of the head.
C is the -1 body zone.
D is the -3 body zone.

This. It should be better clarified in the rules; that's a change we'll have to make in the next print.



Under what circumstances is this tested? Very few of my kydex IWB holsters will retain a heavy gun without pressure from a belt; most CTACs, for example, won't, unless adjusted to be unserviceably tight.

Every holster I use will retain the unloaded gun when held upside down off the belt; I consider this important from both a safety and retention standpoint. In fact, my holsters will normally do it with a fully loaded gun.

We considered other tests to make sure there was some reasonable retention, but they were all either subjective (would depend on the amount of force applied by the tester) or unsafe. You hit it on the head, we basically want to be sure that the gun won't come out of the holster no matter what the shooter is doing before he draws. I'm certainly open to other approaches.


Gearing only towards "CCW" does eliminate duty carry.

Yes. That was a decision we made very early on. I've seen far too many people game "duty gear" to the point it was just short of an Open setup. Expectations are that any LEO who is interested enough to shoot a game probably carries off duty.


Are awards being made for the respective power floors? For example, will there be a winner in Major Master and Minor Master?

No. The Top Major Caliber is awarded like any of the other special categories: based on total number of eligible participants in that category.


Instead of separate scoring rings and/or distinctions, how about people shooting Minor get 10% added to their final score? That's about what it calculates to in USPSA match points, according to Matt Burkett who tried shooting Minor at a Limited championship and ended up like 4th or 5th.

There's no way you're going to convince me that the typical high end shooter is going to be 10% slower shooting Major. I've got a lot of data comparing two otherwise almost identical guns (P30 and HK45) and on something like the F.A.S.T. I'm not giving up anywhere near 10%.

We had a tough decision to make with the Maj/min thing. See further discussion below.



Weight, size, barrel length restrictions (just strictly enforce the concealment requirements/ holster rules and it'll be somewhat self regulating).

We considered that, but the goal isn't to see how crazy a gun you could conceal, it's to give folks using their true EDC gear a sense of level playing field.


Magazine capacity restricted to 10 rounds, instead just have a few categories based on capacity (and limit the categories to guns that are designed for that capacity).

Actually, we had it set like that originally. But it becomes burdensome to have lots of categories -- remember, except for the "special" categories everything is head to head, even auto vs. revo --and the 10rd thing is a law in so many places. And you'd be hard pressed to determine "designed capacity" for a lot of guns. What is the designed capacity of a G17? They have 10, 15, 17, 19, and 33rd magazines available.


The scoring is needlessly complicated, especially the multiple non-threat penalties.

Other than the non-threat penalties, how so? It's no more complicated than IDPA which is universally lauded for its simplistic scoring.

The non-threat penalties represent a balance between two competing interests. On the one hand, we felt that hitting a non-threat should be much more serious than just a tiny penalty. On the other, we had a lot of serious competitors tell us that one edger on a NT shouldn't be a game-ending mistake. So we made "kills" on the NT a high penalty (which will only likely happen if you make a target ID error) and minor wounds a lower penalty.


Fault lines for cover violations, I despise fault lines and boxes.

There is no other objective way to measure use of cover. It's far from perfect and I was extremely opposed to it, so much so that the inaugural match went with IDPA cover rules over the objection of many early suggestions. But after running that first match, it was clear that having someone making judgment calls like that was too subjective. We'd rather be objective even at the cost of realism.


Air gun/rehearsal penalties are one of those things that end up being subjective and subject to RO (and competitor) abuse, the only time a penalty should be assessed imo is if a competitor activates a prop.

That's worth considering.


Engagement order should have a "near to far" stipulation.

Disagree completely. I've been to many matches where "near to far" meant traversing an active threat so I could swing wider to another threat that was just slightly closer. It's unrealistic to expect someone to ignore the threat right in front of them and instead look around to see if maybe there is a "better" threat first.


Allow 45 LC, along with .45 ACP for revolvers.

I'll have to ask SLG why we didn't allow them in the first place. It seems there are enough folks who want that.


Allow 7 & 8 shot revolvers (I know a fair number of guys who use these for real) if they fit in the box.

The problem, as mentioned by someone earlier, is that it creates an equipment race for anyone who wants to compete with a revo but only own a 6-shot. If we have to choose between forcing either all the 6-shot owners to buy 8-shots or all the 8-shot owners to buy 6-shots, we're going with the latter.


Allow 5 & 6" revolver barrels, if they fit in box.

I've never met anyone who CCWs a 6" revolver.


Change scoring to: A-Zone = 5 points, B & C Zones = 1 point, D Zone = zero points to better reflect anatomic an physiologic reality.

We actually originally had almost exactly that as a scoring system. The problem is that it makes the disaster factor too high for misses and people said they wouldn't come play. As it is, the penalty for missing into the C-zone is twice what it is in IDPA (which is already many times higher than IPSC).


HNT = DQ for that stage.

The problem is that you cannot DQ a stage, it would essentially take them out of the game altogether. While again there might be a realistic component to training that way, from a competition standpoint you cannot have all-or-nothing shots like that.


Major and minor PF is BS--a hit in the A-zone is a hit, regardless of caliber. If you really must do it, give 2 points for B & C zone hits to major caliber shooters, rather than just 1 point for minor caliber shooters. D-zone is still a big fat zero.

Couldn't agree more that it's a BS distinction in terms of ballistic efficacy. But the Maj/min distinction is not made based on how much damage the bullet would do, it's made based on realistic assessment of the greater (and/or perceived) difficulty of shooting a major-PF handgun. If it's harder to get the same hits with a full power .45 than a power floor 9mm, the full power .45 guy needs some incentive to feel like he's on even ground. In IPSC, they weighted it so far toward the Major guy that it's almost stupid to shoot anything but Major. In IDPA, they created whole different divisions to split the two power factors.

I still really prefer the idea of having just a slightly smaller body A-zone for folks shooting minor (7" vs 8") because it would be fairly easy to score and administer. But it would require a custom target.


No DA pistol Specialty Division.

Why not? Again, the goal here is to give folks who own or are issued a DA/SA pistol a sense that they don't need to go out and buy a 1911 or SFA to compete.


Appendix A--the major and minor Power Floors table is goofy from a wound ballistic perspective.

Yup. As discussed, it's not about wound ballistics.


Cold Ranges SUCK Donkey balls...

Yup. The original version of the rules allowed for hot ranges. Then we had a very long discussion with an extremely plugged in competitor who was able to give us such a long laundry list of reasons to disallow it that we did. You can still have a "hot bay." For example, the entire match we'll be holding next month at the NRA is in one bay so it will essentially be a hot range. But if you leave the bay (potty break, etc.) you need to clear first.

[TheRoland]

Every holster I use will retain the unloaded gun when held upside down off the belt; I consider this important from both a safety and retention standpoint. In fact, my holsters will normally do it with a fully loaded gun.


Comp-Tac says this about their hybrid IWB holsters:


Retention Test
Turning a holstered pistol upside down is NOT a valid test for IWB holsters. This stand-alone retention is set to a lower level by design. When worn with a proper gun belt, the holster reaches full retention.

Crossbreed says roughly the same thing about their hybrids, as do most of the clones.

I lack the experience to know if this is limited to hybrids. I know there's general distaste for CompTac and hybrids here, but they're very popular and do retain the gun quite well when actually worn. They're not out there ejecting guns; quite the opposite. Complaints about brand-new hybrid holsters locking the gun in place are pretty common.

For an alternative, you could require the holster retain while the user repeatedly jumps or runs a short distance. Or don't make this requirement apply to non-appendix IWB hybrids. I'm not sure I think that gamers are likely to come up with hybrid speed-holsters.


EDIT: I need to eat a little crow. I just was able to take off my M&P in the all-kydex CTAC, and it actually retains fine. I'm apparently speaking of hybrid holsters ONLY. A fix would be to exclude hybrid holsters from this requirement. I've edited above.

Sorry for the mistake.

[jar]

(1) I've seen more ADs in classes from people doing the "hammer down" than any other problem. It's stupid and unsafe to ask someone to press the trigger to prove a gun is unloaded. You want to prove the gun is unloaded? Show me the chamber and mag well.

(2) You've obviously never shot a match with a pistol equipped with a mag disconnect.


Were these ADs after verifying an empty chamber and magwell? If so, is an AD in a safe direction on a range better or worse than a competitor leaving the line with a loaded gun? I'm curious what the high level competitors who convinced you not to allow hot ranges said on this issue. Like I said in my initial comment, I ask this is primarily a gamer. I totally understand and agree with the idea of not dropping the hammer habitually all the time, but I file hammer down under square range procedures that we acknowledge and understand as different from defensive carry, just like the 180 rule and such. Regarding #2, I have, and there's a reason I don't anymore.



If the rules say that, they shouldn't.

That was my assumption. It's not that they say you can, it's that they don't say you can't. I'm guessing that everyone who read the rules took that as a given without checking for it.



There's no way you're going to convince me that the typical high end shooter is going to be 10% slower shooting Major. I've got a lot of data comparing two otherwise almost identical guns (P30 and HK45) and on something like the F.A.S.T. I'm not giving up anywhere near 10%.

Yeah, it's not 10% slower, it's 10% fewer points in USPSA scoring minor vs scoring major. The 10% comes from the scoring system as a whole, not the time.



The non-threat penalties represent a balance between two competing interests. On the one hand, we felt that hitting a non-threat should be much more serious than just a tiny penalty. On the other, we had a lot of serious competitors tell us that one edger on a NT shouldn't be a game-ending mistake. So we made "kills" on the NT a high penalty (which will only likely happen if you make a target ID error) and minor wounds a lower penalty.

I agree with this analysis completely and really like your HNT rules.

[NickA]

That's too bad you got such a negative response.

I sent an 'allow AIWB' request to their official email address a few weeks ago.

Not holding my breath.

I just checked the thread over there and didn't see it, but he may not have updated it lately.
Also to be clear about my earlier post, it wasn't necessarily Bubba downing the AIWB , he just didn't think it had much chance of being allowed since it's not that common.
I guess I'll send it in also but like you I won't be holding my breath.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[jlw]

Yes. That was a decision we made very early on. I've seen far too many people game "duty gear" to the point it was just short of an Open setup. Expectations are that any LEO who is interested enough to shoot a game probably carries off duty.



That does make it simpler and cut down on interpretation issues a bit.


As to the revolvers, I would like to see .45 Colt included. Also, I do carry a 4" K frame CCW. I'd like to see them be legal as well.

[MDS]

the entire match we'll be holding next month at the NRA is in one bay

Aaaa-HA!! I'm optimizing my practice regimen as we speak! Also, are these legal for AIWB speed draws?

289

(Gamers gonna game, haters gonna hate.)

[ToddG]

Were these ADs after verifying an empty chamber and magwell?

They were ADs either (a) after the commands were given and executed in zombie fashion as usual with an accident at the end, or (b) out of habit by someone who was taught in competition to hammer down and did it even when the gun was loaded. I've done the latter myself.


If so, is an AD in a safe direction on a range better or worse than a competitor leaving the line with a loaded gun?

Since I'm not scared of loaded guns in holsters, I'd say by definition an AD is worse than a gun in the holster regardless of condition. More importantly, as mentioned above it's the habit that concerns me the most. I see so many people follow this procedure outside of match conditions and it does lead to accidents.


Yeah, it's not 10% slower, it's 10% fewer points in USPSA scoring minor vs scoring major. The 10% comes from the scoring system as a whole, not the time.

Understood. My point is that applying it to this (or IDPA style) scoring wouldn't work because it would have to equate to 10% faster.

[Wheeler]

In regards to the six shot revolvers competing with the seven and eight shot revolvers, I don't have a problem running a six shooter against the higher capacity guns, as long as we both have to reload. That would put a little more pressure on the stage designer, and would affect the round count of the stages to a degree.

I've shot major IDPA matches that were NOT revolver neutral, and didn't really feel dumped upon as all the revolver shooters had to face the same issues. When the last rules revision in IDPA was in progress, I and a few others pushed hard to allow the higher capacity round guns in ESR, but were shouted down by the 625 guys. I'd like to see something besides USPSA and ICORE where those guns can be used in a formal competition.

Disclaimer: I don't own a revolver that holds more than six rounds.

[BN]

When the last rules revision in IDPA was in progress, I and a few others pushed hard to allow the higher capacity round guns in ESR, but were shouted down by the 625 guys.

I wanted to keep it at 6 rounds in ESR. :)

But with participation so low in ESR, maybe it would be worth a try to allow 7 & 8 shot revolvers in ESR.

[jlw]

Is the Serpa (and similar) holsters going to be banned (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1569-Banning-the-SERPA)?

[ToddG]

Is the Serpa (and similar) holsters going to be banned (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1569-Banning-the-SERPA)?

That's a very good question and something we hadn't really discussed a few years ago when we made the initial draft.

[Prdator]

So is the plan really to NOT allow the Glock 34/35? I hate to have to change out my carry gun to a G17 just to shoot this....

[ToddG]

Let's hear what others think about the G34/G35 for a game designed around CCW...

[BN]

Let's hear what others think about the G34/G35 for a game designed around CCW...

Are you going to try to get crossover shooters from IDPA SSP, IDPA SSR and USPSA Production?

I did a quick search online and couldn't find a single factory .38 Special load that would make 300 fpe and a lot of 9mm loads were marginal. They might not make 125pf/300fpe in a short barrel gun.

Some people won't want to have to switch guns and loads to play.

[JodyH]

Let's hear what others think about the G34/G35 for a game designed around CCW...
M&PL and P30L are both legal (XD-M Comp is not), I don't see where the G34/35 or even the 17L are a big advantage when it comes to shooting from concealed with a low round count.
For me personally I found the 34 to be slightly faster on multiple shots on one target, but slightly slower on transitions and slightly slower on the draw from concealed than a 19.
I'm talking .05 sec. differences per shot on drills like the "Triple Nickle" from IWB carry.
I may shoot .20 splits with the 34 and .24 splits with the 19, but reverse that on the transitions.

[jlw]

That's a very good question and something we hadn't really discussed a few years ago when we made the initial draft.

I guess all of the arguments for or against it are in the other thread and don't need to be brought into this one. I was mainly curious.


Let's hear what others think about the G34/G35 for a game designed around CCW...

The arguments for it would be to allow the IDPA folks to shoot the same gun in KTSG, but the trigger pull weight rule might just as well put many of these pistols right back out of the mix if those pistols are setup as gamer guns. Or course, this won't just apply to 34/35s.

[Wheeler]

Are you going to try to get crossover shooters from IDPA SSP, IDPA SSR and USPSA Production?

I did a quick search online and couldn't find a single factory .38 Special load that would make 300 fpe and a lot of 9mm loads were marginal. They might not make 125pf/300fpe in a short barrel gun.

Some people won't want to have to switch guns and loads to play.

I've been reloading for so long that I don't even think about factory ammo these days. That's a really good point.

[Lon]

I used to shoot 3 gun in Michigan at a club that used these rules:



SCORING

All targets are either Neutralized or Not

Steel targets are neutralized when knocked down

Clay targets are neutralized when broken

Typical USPSA cardboard targets are as follows: ( D - zone are misses )

Rifle - 2 hits C or better

Handgun - 2 hits B or better or 3 hits C or Better

PENALTIES

Failure to Neutralize - add 10 seconds

Shooting a Non-Threat - add 10 seconds

Procedural - add 5 seconds

Unsportsmanlike conduct *- add 30 seconds

I personally liked the way they scored handgun hits and the penalties.

I understand the reason for not allowing duty gear, but would rather see the restrictions Jody puts on his matches than banning duty gear all together. I use the open top pouches at work, but would run a separate rig with a duplicate duty holster and flapped pouches for this if I could.

I think not allowing pistols with 5+" barrels is a good idea if you are trying to keep this geared towards true carry gear. The number of shooters who truly carry the G34/35 on a regular basis is minute. Just like the number of LEOs who wouldnt shoot this just because their duty gear was excluded is minute. If you are trying to get crossover shooters from idpa and uspsa, then it needs reevaluated.

The main concern I have is with the ammo requirements. My concern is with the short barreled carry guns like a Kahr CW9/K9, Walther PPS, etc making the requirements with off the shelf ammo.

I'd shoot it if it gets to my AO.

[jthhapkido]

Looking at the rules, minor bits here and there would taking some getting used to---but quite frankly, the thing that would keep me from shooting it is that my reloads won't work.

It'll make power factor---but not the muzzle energy equation. Matter of fact, out of a 4.25 inch barrel, you are going to find that many people will have difficulty if they happen to use 147 grain bullets. (Which lots of people do for 9mm.)

Lots of 147gr commercial self-defense loads get about 935-945 ft/sec out of a 4.25 in barrel----which isn't going to make Minor under your rules. My reloads out of a G34 get about 960, so they'll be lower out of my G17. And 147gr bullet needs to make at least 959 to be sufficient for your muzzle energy equation. (It'll make power factor easily: 141, when the limit is 125.) And yes, some commercial rounds would manage the muzzle energy requirement---however, people aren't going to want to spend $25 per box of 20 rounds for a match, though. :)

People shooting 124s and 115s won't have any problem at all, but those 147s----a lot of commercial loads just won't work. And most people don't set up their reloads that hot.

("Hot" being defined in this way for shorter barrels---I know they aren't really "hot" in terms of pressure/recoil, but most people just won't do them that way. Out of a G19, it would be even slower, and that and a G17 are fairly standard carry firearms.)

Just a thought.

[theblacknight]

I'm pretty vocal about IDPA gamers trying to give my the gamer title, but if someone carries all that slide daily(g34), they should shoot it.


That's what I thought IDPA was about, run your carry gear. If you don't feel competitive in a match against other dudes w their carry gear, why do you carry it?

[Mike Honcho]

I don't get the weapon-mounted light rule. I'd say allow them.

[Lon]

Since I don't own a RCS holster, let me ask this - will they hold he gun in off a belt when turned upside down? The one my buddy has won't. On a belt when ur wearing it, no prob, but not by itself. One of the reasons I didn't care for it. I can see the holster test as being an issue for some. I like it, but can see how guys might get upset about it.

[TheRoland]

Since I don't own a RCS holster, let me ask this - will they hold he gun in off a belt when turned upside down? The one my buddy has won't. On a belt when ur wearing it, no prob, but not by itself. One of the reasons I didn't care for it. I can see the holster test as being an issue for some. I like it, but can see how guys might get upset about it.

I'm upset about it for hybrid holsters (which won't retain by design) but all of my kydex holsters, including RCS, retain fine.

The RCSs are especially tight. There may be something wrong with his holster.


Personally, I'd not want the long-slide models of anything to be legal, but the power factor issues concern me.

[theblacknight]

I carry in a MTAC. Can I just bust out a hand stand and be good?

[ToddG]

re: power floors

Random thought of the morning, how about just requiring all ammo to fall within some reasonable limit (say -10%) of standard factor non-target, non-competition, non-+p velocity (or PF?) for a given caliber and bullet weight?

Obviously there would be a certain arbitrariness in setting "standard" but a quick look at the catalogs from the Big Three should be more than adequate.

It would solve the .38 problem while simultaneously preventing the ".45 minor" type issue we were trying to avoid in the first place.

[Lon]

re: power floors

Obviously there would be a certain arbitrariness in setting "standard" but a quick look at the catalogs from the Big Three should be more than adequate.

My only concern with this method is how they come about the average velocities. Are they with 4" guns, 3" guns, etc.? Around here, the most common carry guns (at least from the myriad of shooters I know from competition and classes, etc.) are the subcompact semi-autos - the baby Glocks, the M&Pc models, the Kahrs, the XD compacts, etc. Will these guns make the velocities needed by using catalog data? That's the million dollar question.

I think whatever ammo floors you set should be set with these type guns in mind.

[rsa-otc]

Just had time to read through the rule book. I'm impressed and I like it. It addresses the majority of my beefs with IDPA. Since I do shoot SSR if you can address the PF issue as discussed that would be great.

This really addresses one of my major complaints with IDPA (can't speak to USPSA since I have yet to try that and don't fully understand the scoring system). By using a penalty of 1 second per point down rather than .5, accuracy and well placed shots weight more than speed.

Using the FAST as a means to classification was pure genius. While the IDPA classifier tests a broader range of skills, it can be cumbersome and as mentioned gamed.

I would like to see the ability for uniformed personnel to be able to shoot this with their duty gear, even if it's for a unofficial score. I say uniformed because there are plenty of folks, Armored Car, Armed Security, Private LEO who carry pistols for a living who would like to test their skills outside their agency's training environment. While they may not have the money for a formal class, they can scare up the $20 for a local match fee. And yes I know this is not training. This could be handled on a club level basis I guess.

Todd would you mind if I share this with my local club? :)

[SLG]

I would like to see the ability for uniformed personnel to be able to shoot this with their duty gear, even if it's for a unofficial score. I say uniformed because there are plenty of folks, Armored Car, Armed Security, Private LEO who carry pistols for a living who would like to test their skills outside their agency's training environment. While they may not have the money for a formal class, they can scare up the $20 for a local match fee. And yes I know this is not training. This could be handled on a club level basis I guess.


I don't really care if guys want to shoot in duty gear for no score, but the point of the match is CCW, not anything else.

BTW, and not trying to be snarky, but I don't think you can properly attribute that quote to Bob Vogel. It was said long before he picked up a gun.

[SLG]

I think some of you have missed the point of KSTG. There are already other sports out there that allow you to use guns with silly barrel lengths, unsafe trigger weights, oversize mag wells, holsters with little to no retention, down loaded ammo, outdated, arcane calibers (for ccw today, not 100 years ago), etc.

As far as the Serpa issue goes, Todd and I have discussed it, and they will not be allowed in KSTG. To do otherwise would be dishonest and irresponsible on our part.

For the G34/35 shooters, they too will not be allowed. If that means that you won't shoot KSTG because you can't use your actual carry gun, I completely respect that.

KSTG is a game, and doesn't pretend to be anything else. However, for those of us who like playing games, and want to do it with our actual carry gear, as well as have a scoring system that better represents reality (notice I said better, not matches), here it is. For those of you who simply want to win something, you're welcome to come shoot too, but we will not be catering to your ideas of how a competition should go.

If you really think that your gun/holster/position/concealing garment/etc... is less competitive than someone else's, you either need to switch to that set up (for carry as well, since it's "better", right), or you can go out and improve your shooting. If you rotate guns less (any guns, not just dissimilar ones),maybe you'll get some real skill;-)

[jthhapkido]

[snip]
If you rotate guns less (any guns, not just dissimilar ones),maybe you'll get some real skill;-)

Making friends everywhere, I see. :p

[rsa-otc]

BTW, and not trying to be snarky, but I don't think you can properly attribute that quote to Bob Vogel. It was said long before he picked up a gun.

I thought as much, but since I have yet to find out who may have originally said it, and since I heard it from him I gave credit to him. It certainly wasn't a rsa-otc original. :)

ETA: OK Google finally worked for me, fixed it.

[SLG]

Making friends everywhere, I see. :p


None of my friends are feeble minded. Others are welcome.

There's a ;-) at the end of that to show I was not being completely serious, though if you disagree with Todd's post on that, I have a hard time taking you seriously. Something there you disagree with? Tough to get to GM (I imagine) switching guns a lot.

[ToddG]

As SLG mentions, we talked about this and came to a simple conclusion: our goal isn't to be more in line with existing games. Let's face it, if what you really want is "IDPA with appendix carry" then just run an IDPA match and allow appendix carry. You're certainly not upsetting us. Hell, if you're within a few hours' driving distance of DC I'll come shoot that match!

We had a specific purpose in mind when we wrote these rules. If there are some people who don't like that their IDPA gun or USPSA ammo isn't legal, we understand 100%. But we're not going to compromise our principles (or the game's principles) to allow gear we don't think is appropriate. Because, well, that would be inappropriate.

We also understand that the more strict the equipment rules become, the more outliers there will be... people who legitimately carry something we've outlawed. That's unfortunate. If we had a magical device capable of verifying that you're using your honest everyday carry gear, I think we'd allow just about anything. Failing that, we want to make the game as approachable as possible for folks who want to use their actual carry equipment. If that means that some guys who carry G34's get screwed, we're genuinely sorry. We're not making a judgment about the gear you chose for yourself. We're just trying to avoid an arms race based on perceived benefits of specialized gear. If the fact that you cannot shoot a G34 means you'll never shoot a KSTG match -- assuming a KSTG match is ever held anywhere to begin with :cool: -- is totally up to you. It's no different than me not shooting IDPA because I cannot shoot from appendix. My choice is to comply with their rules or not shoot.

[jthhapkido]

re: power floors

Random thought of the morning, how about just requiring all ammo to fall within some reasonable limit (say -10%) of standard factor non-target, non-competition, non-+p velocity (or PF?) for a given caliber and bullet weight?

Obviously there would be a certain arbitrariness in setting "standard" but a quick look at the catalogs from the Big Three should be more than adequate.

It would solve the .38 problem while simultaneously preventing the ".45 minor" type issue we were trying to avoid in the first place.

I completely understand wanting to make sure that people are shooting ammo that would be more effective than throwing rocks. :)

I like your idea--but that is because I would shoot my G17, which is about the same size as the barrels normally used to find muzzle velocities in those catalogs. G19 would probably be okay, too. Out of a G26....would be hard to tell. People shooting guns with 3" barrels might have considerably more issues. Have a -% for each half inch less than the "standard" barrel?

On the other hand, I just actually looked at what you said and did the math. Assuming even that 1000 ft/sec was the standard for 147 grain rounds (which I think is a little high), that means that any velocity over 900 would work. I'd have to take my G26 out to check, but it might make that level of % difference with a standard 147 reload. Hm. I think---it would depend on if you picked a median velocity out of the books, or a higher one.

It does seem to me that for a given weight, as long as your bullets go within 10% of the median ave non-plinking non +P round out there, (given that gives a range close to 100 ft/sec) that should be doable. Once I get my chrono to the range, I'll tell you what I think regarding the G26, unless someone else already knows about how many ft/sec you drop per inch of barrel?

...and, because I couldn't leave it alone, I just looked up the following:
Hornady TAP 975
Hornady XTP 975
Speed Gold Dot 985
Winchester Ranger-T 990
Winchester PDX1 990
Federal Hydra-Shok 1000
Winchester Silvertip 1010

...using this, you get an average of 989 ft/sec. So, using 990ft/sec for 147gr, and your suggested -10%, anything over 891 ft/sec is fine---and I'm pretty sure everyone could make that work. (And it would make power factor, too. :) )I would assume that similar ratios for other bullet weights would work as well.

That might be a really workable idea, particularly if your velocities were given in advance in your rules (just as you did before). Best of all, no one could argue that they didn't know the requirements.

[jthhapkido]

None of my friends are feeble minded. Others are welcome.

There's a ;-) at the end of that to show I was not being completely serious, though if you disagree with Todd's post on that, I have a hard time taking you seriously. Something there you disagree with? Tough to get to GM (I imagine) switching guns a lot.

Actually, I tend to agree with him. (And the only time I switch guns is when I have no choice based on conditions.)

It wasn't meant to be sarcastic or argumentative---hence the :p

I am still amazed at the number of people who jumped all over Todd for his opinion post on that topic.

(And I'm not likely to make GM anytime soon---I don't have enough time to practice competition stuff!)

[ToddG]

The muzzle velocity/barrel length thing is a PITA. The old IDPA rule was best (longest barrel legal in the division) and if we did that, odds are we'd allow less than a 10% reduction over advertised velocity. But it requires a collection of guns and as was discussed in another thread here recently, that's onerous enough for some clubs/groups that it needs to be avoided.

Measuring with the competitor's gun you get another advantage for longer-barreled guns. They can shoot weaker ammo and still make the power floor.

[SLG]

Actually, I tend to agree with him. (And the only time I switch guns is when I have no choice based on conditions.)

I am still amazed at the number of people who jumped all over Todd for his opinion post on that topic.

That's why I poked, I can't believe how man people misinterpreted what he wrote, and then still seemed to disagree.

[jthhapkido]

The muzzle velocity/barrel length thing is a PITA. The old IDPA rule was best (longest barrel legal in the division) and if we did that, odds are we'd allow less than a 10% reduction over advertised velocity. But it requires a collection of guns and as was discussed in another thread here recently, that's onerous enough for some clubs/groups that it needs to be avoided.

Measuring with the competitor's gun you get another advantage for longer-barreled guns. They can shoot weaker ammo and still make the power floor.

Some sort of step function? (Nothing like making it complicated...) With a 4+ inch barrel, within 5% of the average velocity, with a 3 inch barrel, within 10%? [sigh] Pretty soon you'll have a formula that requires a computer.

One of the things that I always liked about the Pro-Am is that they don't have a power floor at all---they don't care what you are shooting. EXCEPT that they say the steel must fall to score, and if it didn't fall, your ammo is too weak and it is just too bad. No reshoots. :) (Of course, they can do that because all of the targets are steel.)

[theblacknight]

as mentioned gamed.




How soo?

[DocGKR]

"We had a specific purpose in mind when we wrote these rules. If there are some people who don't like that their IDPA gun or USPSA ammo isn't legal, we understand 100%. But we're not going to compromise our principles (or the game's principles) to allow gear we don't think is appropriate. Because, well, that would be inappropriate."

Yet there is a lot of compromising going on in the name of making the game easier and less realistic...

---------------------------


"The problem, as mentioned by someone earlier, is that it creates an equipment race for anyone who wants to compete with a revo but only own a 6-shot. If we have to choose between forcing either all the 6-shot owners to buy 8-shots or all the 8-shot owners to buy 6-shots, we're going with the latter."

Why would the 6-shot shooters be forced to purchase an 8-shot? When competing with guys using 10 rd pistol mags in stages designed around 10 shot mags, the 6 shot is simply re-loading a bit earlier than the revolver shooter with a 7 or 8 shot.


"I've never met anyone who CCWs a 6" revolver."

I personally CCW'd a 5" N-frame while in parts of the country where the local fauna had the potential to eat me for a snack and knew a couple of folks running 6" N-frames the same way...


"Change scoring to: A-Zone = 5 points, B & C Zones = 1 point, D Zone = zero points to better reflect anatomic an physiologic reality."

"We actually originally had almost exactly that as a scoring system. The problem is that it makes the disaster factor too high for misses and people said they wouldn't come play. As it is, the penalty for missing into the C-zone is twice what it is in IDPA (which is already many times higher than IPSC)."

Too bad, so sad that some wimps don't want to compete in something that is a bit more realistic and rewards the whole "aim small, miss small" and "speed is fine, accuracy is final" ethic that so many espouse. Turns out the "disaster factor" for misses in the real world is even higher...


"The problem is that you cannot DQ a stage, it would essentially take them out of the game altogether. While again there might be a realistic component to training that way, from a competition standpoint you cannot have all-or-nothing shots like that."

Shooting a hostage/family member/innocent in the real world does more than "take you out of the game altogether". Why can't there be all-or-nothing shots--seems to me it might induce the ideal level of stress to really make shooters focus and take a shot VERY seriously. There are a lot of other shooting disciplines that let folks masturbate their shots away, why not make an event for folks that are truly serious about their craft?


"Couldn't agree more that it's a BS distinction in terms of ballistic efficacy. But the Maj/min distinction is not made based on how much damage the bullet would do, it's made based on realistic assessment of the greater (and/or perceived) difficulty of shooting a major-PF handgun. If it's harder to get the same hits with a full power .45 than a power floor 9mm, the full power .45 guy needs some incentive to feel like he's on even ground. In IPSC, they weighted it so far toward the Major guy that it's almost stupid to shoot anything but Major. In IDPA, they created whole different divisions to split the two power factors."

Well, if they don't feel they have an advantage shooting their larger caliber firearm, maybe they should re-think what they are carrying...

Seriously.


"I still really prefer the idea of having just a slightly smaller body A-zone for folks shooting minor (7" vs 8") because it would be fairly easy to score and administer. But it would require a custom target."

Bad guy anatomy and physiology does not change depending on what caliber handgun the good guys are carrying, why should the required target zone change? Seems illogical, artificial, and game-like.


"Again, the goal here is to give folks who own or are issued a DA/SA pistol a sense that they don't need to go out and buy a 1911 or SFA to compete."

Please...if they don't feel they have an advantage shooting their DA/SA handgun, maybe they should re-think what they are carrying. For folks mandated by policy to shoot a DA/SA, then I suspect this will give them a greater and more realistic form of practice--again, the bad guys don't care and don't react differently whether you have an SA, LEM/DAK, or DA/SA pistol. Besides, folks like you and Ernie have proven that DA/SA can compete with the SA and striker fired guns just fine.


"As discussed, it's not about wound ballistics."

On practical levels, it should be...

For minimum Power Factor, just set-up a steel plate with the requisite resistance force--if the competitor's load fired out of their handgun drops the plate, they are in, if not, then the load didn't meet the required PF...pretty simple.

[jlw]

As far a the power floor thing goes, that should be measured with the specific competitor's pistol across the board in all of the sports...

[Wheeler]

As far a the power floor thing goes, that should be measured with the specific competitor's pistol across the board in all of the sports...

I agree, it would be rather difficult to provide a larger gun of all types to make PF.

[SLG]

As far a the power floor thing goes, that should be measured with the specific competitor's pistol across the board in all of the sports...

There are problems with that too.

[JDM]

Why not list 5ish ammo types for each caliber allowed that are sure to make the requirements? If you reload, duplicate that load.

[SLG]

Why not list 5ish ammo types for each caliber allowed that are sure to make the requirements? If you reload, duplicate that load.

I'm all for that, but too many people are not honest.

[JDM]

It boggles my mind that people would BS something like that.

From what I gathered from the actual match announcement thread, these are 50 round, or thereabouts matches right? Why not just pick a commonly available load for each caliber, make that the standard, and only allow that.

For instance say you designate Speer Lawman. It comes in every flavor under the sun. It's loaded stoutly, and is easy to find. For 100 bucks, you could have enough "match ammo" for 8 matches.

If people are so intent on cheating on a 50 round match that they reload Speer brass to recoil less and be easier to shoot, well then...wow.

Keep in mind the above is coming from someone with what amounts to zero competition experience, so it may be utter nonsense. If so, disregard.

[ToddG]

Yet there is a lot of compromising going on in the name of making the game easier and less realistic.

There are some things that need to be compromises or else it's no longer a fair game. As SLG said to me on the phone a while ago, while the idea of true man-vs-man, shoot what you brought, last man left alive is the winner type game has emotional appeal it's rather impractical.


Why would the 6-shot shooters be forced to purchase an 8-shot? When competing with guys using 10 rd pistol mags in stages designed around 10 shot mags, the 6 shot is simply re-loading a bit earlier than the revolver shooter with a 7 or 8 shot.

Because for the "High Revolver" they're shooting against one another but not any of the auto guys. It's completely conceivable that there would be stages or strings where a guy with an 8-shot gun wouldn't need to reload and a guy with a 6-shot would.


I personally CCW'd a 5" N-frame while in parts of the country where the local fauna had the potential to eat me for a snack and knew a couple of folks running 6" N-frames the same way...

And I know folks who CCW G34's. As discussed earlier, we had to draw a line somewhere between "anything anyone says is his real CCW" and objective enforceable rules. There will definitely be people left out (or forced to buy something other than their CCW gear) by our rules if they want to play. There's no getting around that. Otherwise, the guy who swears he CCWs his 28-shot comp'd C-more STI race gun in a ghost holster every day gets to play. And then everyone else will need -- or at least think they need -- that gun to be competitive. And the idea of having a game that is accessible to the mainstream CCW guy goes out the window.

We could just as easily have folks complaining that the stages aren't required to be 5 shots or less for the bazillion people who opt to carry a j-frame and no reload. Again, we're not saying they have to change their lifestyle but that doesn't fit within the brackets we've set for this particular game.


Too bad, so sad that some wimps don't want to compete in something that is a bit more realistic and rewards the whole "aim small, miss small" and "speed is fine, accuracy is final" ethic that so many espouse. Turns out the "disaster factor" for misses in the real world is even higher...

KSTG has twice the penalty for points down as IDPA which is itself already far more accuracy intensive than USPSA.

One of the stated goals is to be fun. Having a single lapse in judgment or twitch of the finger ruin your match experience is not fun. It would be like getting kicked out of a class the first time you make a mistake.


Shooting a hostage/family member/innocent in the real world does more than "take you out of the game altogether".

I used to feel the same way but think about it like this: You're in a horribly bad and chaotic situation, like an active shooter at the mall during Christmas season. For whatever reason you fight rather than flee (because no one wants to shoot a match where "run away" is the winning strategy). You take out two of the three bad guys and then in all the chaos you shoot an innocent 8 year old in the arm. Do you stop fighting?


Why can't there be all-or-nothing shots--seems to me it might induce the ideal level of stress to really make shooters focus and take a shot VERY seriously. There are a lot of other shooting disciplines that let folks masturbate their shots away, why not make an event for folks that are truly serious about their craft?

All I can say is that we feel that the much higher penalties we've created for poor accuracy and hitting non-threats achieve that goal in a reasonable manner. Again, think of it in terms of a class. Someone spends hundreds of dollars to travel to a class, invests time away from home and possibly work, and then fifteen minutes into the shooting he hits a designated "hostage." Do you kick him out and send him home? How many people are going to take a class from that instructor under those circumstances?


Well, if they don't feel they have an advantage shooting their larger caliber firearm, maybe they should re-think what they are carrying...

You know I agree with you 100% on that. I don't even sleep with a box of 357SIG under my pillow anymore because of you. :cool:

What we want to do is encourage folks to use their real gear. And a lot of folks' real gear is not 9mm. You've said yourself that if you were on a patrol assignment with your department you'd probably opt for a .40-cal pistol due to factors that aren't related to how fast or accurately you can put holes in cardboard. We want to let that guy, the one who chooses a .40 for reasons other than gaming it, to get some benefit or recognition.


Bad guy anatomy and physiology does not change depending on what caliber handgun the good guys are carrying, why should the required target zone change? Seems illogical, artificial, and game-like.

It is artificial and game-like. It's a game. It's completely logical, however.

The only meaningful difference between major and minor caliber guns (in game terms) is recoil. Recoil affects shot speed. The more accurate you need to be, the more time you need to take. So the calculus works out that if you're shooting a more powerful, heavier recoiling gun and want to be on even footing (same speed) as someone shooting a puff load, you will shoot slightly less accurately. So in terms of making things fair for a game the 7"/8" idea is attractive.


Please...if they don't feel they have an advantage shooting their DA/SA handgun, maybe they should re-think what they are carrying. For folks mandated by policy to shoot a DA/SA, then I suspect this will give them a greater and more realistic form of practice--again, the bad guys don't care and don't react differently whether you have an SA, LEM/DAK, or DA/SA pistol. Besides, folks like you and Ernie have proven that DA/SA can compete with the SA and striker fired guns just fine.

SLG and I actually spoke about this earlier today. We're in agreement with you in principle. But it's not like DA guns get their own division. Like revolvers, they're fighting head-to-head with everyone else. There's simply a recognition by means of the 'special category' award for the guy who shoots one the best. Because again we want to encourage the guy who is issued a SIG P226 to use his real gun instead of running out and buying a 9mm 1911 to be competitive.

We're trying to be social engineers. :cool:


For minimum Power Factor, just set-up a steel plate with the requisite resistance force--if the competitor's load fired out of their handgun drops the plate, they are in, if not, then the load didn't meet the required PF...pretty simple.

Changing that to two plates -- one for major and one for minor -- it would be great as long as it was possible to calibrate them that closely and consistently across multiple clubs and events all over the country. Since that's probably not possible, it won't work. Believe me, I think it's a great solution even though I imagine we'd both agree that momentum is no better a measure of terminal performance than energy.

[ToddG]

From what I gathered from the actual match announcement thread, these are 50 round, or thereabouts matches right? Why not just pick a commonly available load for each caliber, make that the standard, and only allow that.

What if that particular load in your caliber is sold out? What if you want to zero your gun... now you're forced to have a dedicated gun for the game or keep your gun zeroed to this particular load regardless of what else you might normally shoot. What if you want to function test your gun but don't want to pay for factory ammo? What if you want to practice with your "match" ammo? Heck, what if for some odd reason that particular load isn't reliable in your gun but lots of other ammo, including your carry ammo, is just fine?

There's a reason so many competitive shooters reload, and it's not just to get the wimpiest allowable load.


If people are so intent on cheating on a 50 round match that they reload Speer brass to recoil less and be easier to shoot, well then...wow.

I have seen exactly that -- right down to it being Speer brass -- before in a match that required folks to shoot their duty ammo. Give a valuable enough prize of even just serious recognition for the winner and someone will push limits. That is why you have power floors in the first place. Otherwise you could just say, "everyone shoot standard ammo, ok?"

[rsa-otc]

How soo?

In IDPA some folks do not shoot the classifier to their potential so they will be classified lower and compete at that lower classification, in other words sandbag.

By making the classifier a stage of the match you need to shoot it the best you can or give up match position.

[JodyH]

I'd shoot the rules as written.
But then again I shoot USPSA Limited with a 15 round 9mm from AIWB concealed...

Our local CCW match rules are way more lenient than the KSTG rules and we don't really have any problems with an escalating equipment "arms race".

[jlw]

There are problems with that too.

My competitive shooting world is limited to GSSF and IDPA and some local stuff. I also shoot using factory ammo most of the time as I don't hand load at present.

However, it seems to me that if the PF is supposed to be X, that the rounds a given competitor is using should be fired through that competitor's gun. Wouldn't this make certain that the competitor is meeting PF with their gun and ammo?

What am I missing?

[ToddG]

What am I missing?

A round that makes 125 PF in a 3.5" gun is going to be a lot hotter than a round that makes 125 PF in a 5" gun. So by forcing the load to make PF in the competitor's gun, you force guys with shorter pistols to shoot hotter loads. (phrasing)

[jlw]

A round that makes 125 PF in a 3.5" gun is going to be a lot hotter than a round that makes 125 PF in a 5" gun. So by forcing the load to make PF in the competitor's gun, you force guys with shorter pistols to shoot hotter loads. (phrasing)

I get that to a point, but if the rule says you have to shoot 125PF, then your gun and ammo should have to produce 125PF. If your load is making PF in a 5" gun, but I shoot your load in a 4.5" gun, am I not to a point getting to shoot below the PF?

[JDM]

What if that particular load in your caliber is sold out? What if you want to zero your gun... now you're forced to have a dedicated gun for the game or keep your gun zeroed to this particular load regardless of what else you might normally shoot. What if you want to function test your gun but don't want to pay for factory ammo? What if you want to practice with your "match" ammo? Heck, what if for some odd reason that particular load isn't reliable in your gun but lots of other ammo, including your carry ammo, is just fine?

There's a reason so many competitive shooters reload, and it's not just to get the wimpiest allowable load.



I have seen exactly that -- right down to it being Speer brass -- before in a match that required folks to shoot their duty ammo. Give a valuable enough prize of even just serious recognition for the winner and someone will push limits. That is why you have power floors in the first place. Otherwise you could just say, "everyone shoot standard ammo, ok?"

I can see how reasonableness and fairness is so hard to achieve in things like this.

[JodyH]

What about having a box of "control ammo" ie: Winchester Value Pack to chrono against?
The competitor shoots five rounds of the control ammo and 5 rounds of their own ammo through their gun and the average PF must be within 5.
This takes most of the variables out.
If the control ammo is PF 115 through my Kahr PM9, then my chosen ammunition has to be 110+ through that same Kahr PM9.
If the control comes out of my H&K P30 at PF 128, then my ammo has to PF at 123+ out of my P30.

[SLG]

I get that to a point, but if the rule says you have to shoot 125PF, then your gun and ammo should have to produce 125PF. If your load is making PF in a 5" gun, but I shoot your load in a 4.5" gun, am I not to a point getting to shoot below the PF?

The real issue we care about is not what PF your ammo is. It is that your ammo is appropriate for the mission. Ammo that is appropriate in a 5" gun is often (not always) appropriate in a 3.5" gun, yet going by velocity, the 3.5" gun doesn't make it. The PF test is just A way of ensuring that people don't cheat. It's not the best way. If we could just trust people to shoot factory power ammo, without a test, that would be great. It just isn't possible. Shooters who may be honest in all sorts of ways just seem to have to cheat in competition. I've seen and heard it too many times, and while I won't name names on a forum, I do not associate with any of the people who I know to have cheated in a match. sorry for the rant.

[JAD]

A round that makes 125 PF in a 3.5" gun is going to be a lot hotter than a round that makes 125 PF in a 5" gun. So by forcing the load to make PF in the competitor's gun, you force guys with shorter pistols to shoot hotter loads. (phrasing)
-- Not sure I follow your math. The recoil of a 200 grain bullet going 1000 fps is the same regardless of what gun it's coming out of, I would think. Anyway, this all falls I line with my general distaste for chronos at matches. Since this is a club match (or 'festival,' as we like to call them out here in the midwest), I'd use hard-set steel. Poppers that barely fall to 45 or 10 full-house loads with an upper-third hit, sprinkled liberally throughout the match. It allows you to throw out major / minor distinctions, chronos, and the lot. Of course it favors heavy-duty service pistols, but so does life.

[TGS]

-- Not sure I follow your math. The recoil of a 200 grain bullet going 1000 fps is the same regardless of what gun it's coming out of, I would think. Anyway, this all falls I line with my general distaste for chronos at matches. Since this is a club match (or 'festival,' as we like to call them out here in the midwest), I'd use hard-set steel. Poppers that barely fall to 45 or 10 full-house loads with an upper-third hit, sprinkled liberally throughout the match. It allows you to throw out major / minor distinctions, chronos, and the lot. Of course it favors heavy-duty service pistols, but so does life.

If a 200gr bullet does 1000fps in a 3.5" barrel, that same load will be going much faster in a 5" barrel.

So, if something makes 125pf in a 3.5", it's probably going to make 132pf in a 5" barrel(I'm not being scientific, no one jump on my guesstimate numbers as me stating fact).

[fuse]

I have seen exactly that -- right down to it being Speer brass -- before in a match that required folks to shoot their duty ammo. Give a valuable enough prize of even just serious recognition for the winner and someone will push limits. That is why you have power floors in the first place. Otherwise you could just say, "everyone shoot standard ammo, ok?"


http://memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/11/11663/11943715.jpg

[jlw]

If a 200gr bullet does 1000fps in a 3.5" barrel, that same load will be going much faster in a 5" barrel.

So, if something makes 125pf in a 3.5", it's probably going to make 132pf in a 5" barrel(I'm not being scientific, no one jump on my guesstimate numbers as me stating fact).

But it is still 125 in that particular competitor's gun.

[fuse]

Our local CCW match rules are way more lenient than the KSTG rules and we don't really have any problems with an escalating equipment "arms race".

I reckon IDPA started out the same way.

[ToddG]

The competitor shoots five rounds of the control ammo and 5 rounds of their own ammo through their gun and the average PF must be within 5.

This has promise. The downside I see is administrative. The match will have to buy a substantial volume of ammo in many different calibers, not all of which will get used. And it will take more than twice as long to get chrono results.

How about using JodyH's plan only for a gun that otherwise fails to meet a standard power floor? So for example, we say PF 125 out of your gun. If you make standard PF out of your gun, chrono test is over. If you fail to make the power floor, you then need to be within no more than 5PF of <the index ammo>.


-- Not sure I follow your math. The recoil of a 200 grain bullet going 1000 fps is the same regardless of what gun it's coming out of, I would think.

No. The amount of powder charge necessary to make a 200gr bullet go 1,000fps out of a 3.5" barrel is substantially greater than the charge needed to make it go that same velocity from a 5" barrel.


I reckon IDPA started out the same way.

Not so much. If anything, the early shared drafts of the IDPA rulebook had some crazy equipment rules, most of which were related to allowed and disallowed gun modifications. For example, it was going to be legal to checker the front strap of a .45 1911, but not a 9mm 1911. The current IDPA gun rules are pretty well thought out.

[BN]

My only concern with this method is how they come about the average velocities. Are they with 4" guns, 3" guns, etc.? Around here, the most common carry guns (at least from the myriad of shooters I know from competition and classes, etc.) are the subcompact semi-autos - the baby Glocks, the M&Pc models, the Kahrs, the XD compacts, etc. Will these guns make the velocities needed by using catalog data? That's the million dollar question.

I think whatever ammo floors you set should be set with these type guns in mind.

I ran some of my 9mm IDPA load over the chrono using several different guns, from a 5 inch 1911 to a G-26.

This is the load I have been shooting for several years. It is a max load of Titegroup (3.5 grains) over a 147 grain Montana Gold CMJ with an OAL of 1.140". Brass was mixed range pick up. I like to load to needed power factor plus at least 5 pf for a cushion. Those of you that have had your ammo chronoed at a major match know that voodoo is involved. :)

A few years ago I shot the back to back USPSA Ohio State Championship and the next day the US IPSC Nationals. I shot the exact same gun and ammo (Model 10 S&W, .38 Special) both days. The first day my load went 138 PF and the next day it went 133 PF. The only difference was that I went to chrono in the morning one day and the afternoon the other day. :eek:

1911 five inch: ave velocity: 893, Power Factor: 131.3

Glock 17 #1, 4.5" barrel : ave velocity: 889, PF: 130.6

Glock 17 #2, 4.5" Barrel : ave velocity: 891, PF: 130.9

Glock 19 4 " barrel : ave velocity: 870, PF: 127.9

Glock 26 3.5" barrel : ave velocity: 857, PF 125.9

I forgot my Kahr PM9 which I think has a 3" barrel.

I loaded 8 rounds in each pistol, then fired 2 rounds at a steel plate to warm up the barrel before shooting 6 shots from each pistol over the chrono. I held the pistol level for each shot. IDPA stipulates that the muzzle be raised before each shot so the powder will settle near the primer. It DOES make a difference.

It would be interesting to shoot several factory loads over the chrono through a sampling of different barrel lengths. Are published velocities even close to what you would get from a CCW barrel length?

Before IDPA changed the Power factor in SSR to 105000 they shot a bunch of available factory ammo over the chrono. Not much made a 125 power factor.

Just a few bits of info to use.

Bill

[fuse]

IDPA stipulates that the muzzle be raised before each shot so the powder will settle near the primer. It DOES make a difference.
l

Very interesting! Thanks.

[jar]

IDPA stipulates that the muzzle be raised before each shot so the powder will settle near the primer. It DOES make a difference.
Yup. In some cases a BIG difference, namely small charges of fast powders in big cases. IIRC a friend told me it was 50 fps difference with clays in 38 special with 158gr bullets.

[theblacknight]

In IDPA some folks do not shoot the classifier to their potential so they will be classified lower and compete at that lower classification, in other words sandbag.

By making the classifier a stage of the match you need to shoot it the best you can or give up match position.

While sad, is this really bad? IDK i havent shot a big match yet but, who wants to win Expert SSP when they could be competing in Master? Isnt that like bragging about having high GPA in the 9th grade?

[jetfire]

who wants to win Expert SSP when they could be competing in Master? Isnt that like bragging about having high GPA in the 9th grade?

Yes it is, and yet people do it ALL THE TIME. I've known guys who will have "accidents" on classifiers like dropping their mags or missing headshots to stay in Expert or B class instead of moving up where it's more difficult.

[rsa-otc]

who wants to win Expert SSP when they could be competing in Master? Isnt that like bragging about having high GPA in the 9th grade?

I would think so myself. But for some it may be the difference in walking away with a trophy or coming in 13th. I have only shot one sanctioned match (2011 NJ State Championships) to this point so I don't have much experience with it. But is was enough of a topic that they spent an entire episode of Power Factor on Sandbagging Grand-baggingng. I think it is probably a bigger problem in USPSA & Bullseye where there is actual prizes to be had. I know when I shot PPC it was common place to do so. Of course depending on the number of shooters in an IDPA sanctioned match the classification winner & possibly 2nd place gets bumped to the next higher class automatically. So in IDPA it could be a one shot deal.

Right now I'm shooting mainly club matches and I don't pay much attention to the classifications, I watch to see how I do in my division overall. Most of the time I look to see how I did overall. If I'm not in the top 5 overall I'm usually pissed for days. The only exception is when the Pro's come out to play, then I take it for granted I'm going to get spanked.:o

[JodyH]

I'd rather be classified one level above my current skill level, because nothing pushes me harder than getting beat.

[rsa-otc]

I'd rather be classified one level above my current skill level, because nothing pushes me harder than getting beat.

An excellent way to look at it! :cool:

[Little Creek]

As previously discussed no 38 Special +P ammo on the commercial market will make the KSTG power floor for minor according to published data. I suggest either eliminate the 38 Special from consideration or use a lower power floor.

Most concealed carry pistols will chronograph less than factory published date, with the exception of full size Glocks and possibly a few others.

The Power Factor formula is a "heavy bullet" formula. You can make major with less recoil if you use bullets that are heavy for the caliber. The heavy bullets loaded right at the power factor may have a lower muzzle energy.

I would like to see the use of revolvers and "full moon clips" encouraged in KSTG matches. I love my M625 revolvers. I also have a M646 (40 S&W L frame) 4" revolver. Could you add the 40S&W as a revolver caliber? I would gladly have my 4" M686 6-shooter cut for full moon clips. My M625 Mountain has "Quad Ports" and it still kinks more than my other 4" M625. I carried a 2.5" and later a 4" M19 concealed under a suit or sport coat from 1976 until 1992 at least 10 hours a day at least 5 days a week. That was before the SIG229 replaced the revolver. My employer mandated my duty weapon/ammunition. The 4" was no harder to conceal than the 2.5" The holster of choice at that time was a Desantis Speed Scabbard. I carried speed loaders on the belt. That was before "full moon clips".

Why not say any caliber 9x19 or 38 Special +P or larger for Minor and require factory ammo. Factory ball ammo is not that expensive compared to duty/carry loads. Cronograph if in doubt.

[jetfire]

S&B 158 grain and Fiocchi 158 grain stuff will make the power floor. Those are loaded super hot.

[ghettomedic]

As is often said in other enterprises, when you innovate or otherwise challenge the status quo 10% of people are going to be with you no matter what you do. Another 10% are going to be against you no matter what you do. The challenge becomes designing a product that is attractive and resonant with the remaining 80%, and it appears that you've done that.

Is KSTG for everyone? No. I know for a fact it's not for me. I carry a 5" 1911 with a WML. I can clearly see the rules were not meant for me. No biggie. Within an hour's drive of where I sit I can shoot an IDPA match on the first Monday, second Tuesday, second Saturday and last Thursday of the month. I can shoot a USPSA match 1x/month within a 2 hour drive. I'm just down the road from what some would say is the preeminent IDPA match in the South, the Carolina Cup.

Finding a gun game that accommodates my preferred style of weapon, or my perceived notions of speed vs. accuracy vs. "realism" isn't the issue. It's about having options to find the particular brand of gun game Kool-Aid that quenches your thirst for action / speed / excitement / realism / dynamism. As rob_s once said, "Some people like Star Wars and some people like Star Trek, it ain't a religion."

That's the wonderful thing about this entire shooting / guns / self-defense / training / preparedness enterprise: you decide how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

[BN]

S&B 158 grain and Fiocchi 158 grain stuff will make the power floor. Those are loaded super hot.

They will make a 125 power factor but, from their web sites, it doesn't look like they will make 300 fpe.

[SLG]

As is often said in other enterprises, when you innovate or otherwise challenge the status quo 10% of people are going to be with you no matter what you do. Another 10% are going to be against you no matter what you do. The challenge becomes designing a product that is attractive and resonant with the remaining 80%, and it appears that you've done that.

Is KSTG for everyone? No. I know for a fact it's not for me. I carry a 5" 1911 with a WML. I can clearly see the rules were not meant for me. No biggie. Within an hour's drive of where I sit I can shoot an IDPA match on the first Monday, second Tuesday, second Saturday and last Thursday of the month. I can shoot a USPSA match 1x/month within a 2 hour drive. I'm just down the road from what some would say is the preeminent IDPA match in the South, the Carolina Cup.

Finding a gun game that accommodates my preferred style of weapon, or my perceived notions of speed vs. accuracy vs. "realism" isn't the issue. It's about having options to find the particular brand of gun game Kool-Aid that quenches your thirst for action / speed / excitement / realism / dynamism. As rob_s once said, "Some people like Star Wars and some people like Star Trek, it ain't a religion."

That's the wonderful thing about this entire shooting / guns / self-defense / training / preparedness enterprise: you decide how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

What's a WML? I too carry a 5" 1911 (without a WML, AFAIK), and though I wasn't carrying one when we came up with KSTG, I'd like to think it's still for me. We'll have to see.

[JDM]

Weapon Mounted Light, me thinks.

[SLG]

Ah, smarter than me, thanks. In that case, I do sometimes carry with a WML. GM, what kind of holster do you use, and with which light? Strong side, I assume?

[ghettomedic]

Ah, smarter than me, thanks. In that case, I do sometimes carry with a WML. GM, what kind of holster do you use, and with which light? Strong side, I assume?

Raven Phantom LC, Springfield Lightweight Operator w/ TLR-1, 3:00.

I want to clarify, I'm not bashing KSTG. I think it's great. Having been indoctrinated into the local IDPA scene over the past 5-6 months, I've already grown tired of some of the gamers and fully support the initiative you and TLG showed in developing this. I agree that IDPA matches seem to be lacking in the accuracy department at times, especially given the close distances at which some targets are engaged.

I've been fortunate in that I've gone into the competition scene with two good friends and we all agreed that no matter what transpired over the course of this journey we would, as they say at the local dirt track stock car race, "run what we brung". We've also agreed to concentrate 100% on accuracy at this stage in the game, times be damned.

The first IDPA match I shot was completely out of the blue with about 2 hours notice. I got a call from two friends who were going to see what this IDPA thing was all about and they asked if I wanted to join. I bought 100 rounds of WWB from the Wal-Mart down the street from the range and shot the whole match from an untucked Brooks Brothers oxford shirt using my EDC gun, flashlight and mag pouch. Afterwards I tucked my shirt in, reloaded mags with carry ammo, put on a blazer and went to an engagement party. It was the ultimate validation of my carry gear and only served to reinforce the notion that I'm doing something right in terms of support gear selection.

From those less-than-auspicious beginnings, not much has changed. I've got a small range bag now so I don't have to download mags into my cupholder again but other than that we've made a commitment to compete in the matches without special consideration to guns, ammo or gear beyond what we normally carry and wear every day. I think it's great that you two are introducing a new dimension to the sport, but at the same time I don't feel that the allure of "real-world competition with real-world guns and higher accuracy standards" has applicability to me at this time, because that's what I'm already pursuing at this stage in my IDPA journey.

[SLG]

Sounds good to me, I can't fault you for any of that. In my opinion, if you want to be a great shooter, then competition is a part of that path, not the path itself. To that end, who cares what the competition is, just that it is.

[Little Creek]

One of the things I like about the KSTG format is the reloading requirement. I like the idea of reloading the pistol during a string of fire only when the pistol is empty. I think the "reload under fire" rule sets the KSTG format apart is a good way. Of course, it is easier to tell when a pistol is "dry" than it is when a revolver is dry (except when it goes click instead of bang). Keep up the good work.

[Wheeler]

One of the things I like about the KSTG format is the reloading requirement. I like the idea of reloading the pistol during a string of fire only when the pistol is empty. I think the "reload under fire" rule sets the KSTG format apart is a good way. Of course, it is easier to tell when a pistol is "dry" than it is when a revolver is dry (except when it goes click instead of bang). Keep up the good work.

That's where the whole round counting thing comes into play. I continually have problems when I shoot a semi-auto in IDPA as I'm so used to shoot six and reload, etc. Ten or eleven rounds in the gun messes with my math, anything after nine rounds and I keep expeting the slide to lock back. It's so much easier to count to six. :)

[kdmoore]

Bravo ToddG and company!!!!

Here are some observations from me.

Moon Clips:

I think you'll need to take a stand on moon clips eventually. If you allow them they will be perceived as the gun to beat (they had this perception in IDPA before the rewrite). The gun to beat will be a 686 cut for speedloaders (hardly a typical carry gun). The 625 might be close (those big ol round bullets go into those camfered cylinders quick!) but the extra recoil will likely give the nod to the 686. My personal vote is they are a fringe carry piece. Moon clips should be dissallowed on the same basis as G34/G35 exclusion, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I don't shoot revolvers much so I don't have a dog in this fight, just trying to keep from repeating IDPA's learning experience.

Classifier:
I don't like the classifier. It's certainly easy to administer, but the gulf between classifier skills and match skills will make it unuseful. Potential to have a lot of unintentional grand baggers AND sand baggers since it's so far off a match performance. I don't know what to put in it's place, but something with movement and obstacles will likely be needed.

IWB holsters only?:
I've thought about IDPA overhauls too. When I thought about making a more "tactical" game I thought about excluding light triggers (like minds!) But I also went as far to ONLY ALLOWING IWB concealed carry. This represents the way a majority of CCW holders carry and gets rid of silly holster rules. As it is now, you'll either need to specify holster gap limitations or end up with severely offset holsters (which gets away from the CCW gear). IDPA went thru this. Everyone I know who routinely carries owns at LEAST one IWB holster. Of course, that is a small sample. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that a poll would bear that out.

Unlimited mags?:
I'm not a fan of unlimited mags. Same logic as the ban on gamer glocks, just not what's done by the majority. I'd lean towards allowing enough for your gun to complete the max stage (20 rounds) plus one more mag/speedloader. Maybe requiring them to be covered (moving them off the front of the shooter) will effectively do that anyways?

Load up to mag capacity?:
I have a suggestion for those who want to load up their mags (they always exist, and they are always vocal .... "it's not real world to down load my mags" etc). Allow competitors to load to 10+1 OR full capacity as a choice. Make them decide when they join KSTG, so they don't get to decide stage by stage, match by match. State prominently in your rules that the sport intends to test shooters ability to reload and that a reload is required on EVERY STAGE of 12 or more rounds. Since stages are capped at 20 rounds this will diminish the advantage of the load them up crowd, basically giving them more choices on reload locations, but rarely reducing the number of reloads needed in a stage.

Deep Carry Award?:
I LOVE the idea of recognizing those who "handicap themselves". i.e. DA guns and major calibers. But one other type of carry gun is being left out. Diminuitive carry guns. Walther PPS, all Kahrs, Sig 239's to name a few. These suffer from lower capacity. Maybe allow a catagory for "deep carry" where the major characteristic is a single stack mag that holds 7 or 8 rounds?

Bumps on grips:
As for gaming the grips to allow a magwell ... maybe stipulate it can't exceed the most narrow portion of the grips? Or that the grips aren't allowed if they are created with a wide spot to allow a magwell (gamer grips = gamer gear ... but we are sliding to some of the problems/definitions used in IDPA).


"Quick beeping":
Maybe just add a point of training to the SO's that the timer should not be beeped faster than X seconds (3?, 5?) after saying "standby". SO's that try to take you out of your zone should find another attitude. I think an SO should keep the delay between standby and beep as consistent as they can. There should NOT be rules to enforce this, SO training should suffice.

D zone equals zero:?
cmon! Getting winged in the shoulder or torso has got to count for something. I agree that it should count in scoring.

Save the 1911s:
Am I wrong, or are "low capacity" 1911's going to be handicapped by these rules? If so, I think allowing the 1911 in when it fits the box and weight limits, but allow a 10 round mag (that likely won't fit in the box) to be used. Cmon, it's their centenial birthday! ;) Limited 10 baby!

Holster Retention:
I agree on the gun retention, but admit I don't know much about the hybrid holsters? Maybe allow them a pass if they prove to be retentive when worn on the belt. That would be determined by some independent tester before the rules are changed (and not reconfirmed at each match).

Hammer Down:
The rules, as written, allow a competitor to dry fire into the berm prior to reholstering, they just don't require it. That should satisfy all.

Major Minor:
IMO the simplest way would be to group the allowable calibers into power ranges. Then report results into those ranges. I think a 3 groups would suffice. Minor Power: 9mm Mid Power: 40S&W + 357 sig Full Power: 45, 45GAP, 10mm I don't know enough about revolvers. Maybe "Minor": 38spl + .44 spl and "Magnum": .357 Mag + .44 Mag. Award competitors in each caliber range. Like what you are proposing now, with a mid power level in semi's.

One Day we need to POLL CCW holders:
Eventually, I'd say that any sport(s) that seeks to mimic CCW carry could commission a nationwide poll of concealed carriers on their gear ... and base their sport heavily that way. That would be a good way to not allow the exceptions to drive the sport. Also provide an argument for those who "know someone who CCW's 50 oz wondergun" ... you get the idea. This could help determine the entry requirements for USPSA production, IDPA too.

I'm still thinking thru the harder issues of power factor and determining a match score.

[JodyH]

"Quick beeping":
Maybe just add a point of training to the SO's that the timer should not be beeped faster than X seconds (3?, 5?) after saying "standby". SO's that try to take you out of your zone should find another attitude. I think an SO should keep the delay between standby and beep as consistent as they can. There should NOT be rules to enforce this, SO training should suffice.
Require SO's to utilize the "random delay" on the timer.
That would give a random 2-5 second start signal from the "standby" command.

[JConn]

OI don't know about you but a national poll of carry gear to decide what is allowed seems like a bad idea. We would all end up with j frames and no reloads. Seriously though I carry what I carry because it works. Not everyone carries an extra mag, not everyone carries that mag on their belt. I do because it is the superior way to carry a mag. I think most of us here are "exceptions" carrying full or close to full size guns and reloads knives and flashlights. Anyone who is serious about what they do will be an exception to the rule. It's what seperates professionals and serious amateurs from Joe schmoe concealed carry guy.

[Wheeler]

Bravo ToddG and company!!!!

Here are some observations from me.

Moon Clips:

I think you'll need to take a stand on moon clips eventually. If you allow them they will be perceived as the gun to beat (they had this perception in IDPA before the rewrite). The gun to beat will be a 686 cut for speedloaders (hardly a typical carry gun). The 625 might be close (those big ol round bullets go into those camfered cylinders quick!) but the extra recoil will likely give the nod to the 686. My personal vote is they are a fringe carry piece. Moon clips should be dissallowed on the same basis as G34/G35 exclusion, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I don't shoot revolvers much so I don't have a dog in this fight, just trying to keep from repeating IDPA's learning experience.

I think you have it backwards on the recoil of a 625 vs a 686.
Let the 7 & 8 shot guns in. Let them shoot moonclips. Pay attention to stage design. We'll all have to reload sometime.


Classifier:
I don't like the classifier. It's certainly easy to administer, but the gulf between classifier skills and match skills will make it unuseful. Potential to have a lot of unintentional grand baggers AND sand baggers since it's so far off a match performance. I don't know what to put in it's place, but something with movement and obstacles will likely be needed.

Not much of an assessment of the necessary skills required to shoot the match unless every stage is based on the FAST drill. I totally agree there.


IWB holsters only?:
I've thought about IDPA overhauls too. When I thought about making a more "tactical" game I thought about excluding light triggers (like minds!) But I also went as far to ONLY ALLOWING IWB concealed carry. This represents the way a majority of CCW holders carry and gets rid of silly holster rules. As it is now, you'll either need to specify holster gap limitations or end up with severely offset holsters (which gets away from the CCW gear). IDPA went thru this. Everyone I know who routinely carries owns at LEAST one IWB holster. Of course, that is a small sample. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that a poll would bear that out.

I disagree. Not everyone's body is suited to or preference is an IWB or AIWB.


Unlimited mags?:
I'm not a fan of unlimited mags. Same logic as the ban on gamer glocks, just not what's done by the majority. I'd lean towards allowing enough for your gun to complete the max stage (20 rounds) plus one more mag/speedloader. Maybe requiring them to be covered (moving them off the front of the shooter) will effectively do that anyways?

If the stage max is 20 rounds, and slidelock reloads are the only acceptable reloads, I fail to see the purpose of limiting mags other than as admnistrative?


Load up to mag capacity?:
I have a suggestion for those who want to load up their mags (they always exist, and they are always vocal .... "it's not real world to down load my mags" etc). Allow competitors to load to 10+1 OR full capacity as a choice. Make them decide when they join KSTG, so they don't get to decide stage by stage, match by match. State prominently in your rules that the sport intends to test shooters ability to reload and that a reload is required on EVERY STAGE of 12 or more rounds. Since stages are capped at 20 rounds this will diminish the advantage of the load them up crowd, basically giving them more choices on reload locations, but rarely reducing the number of reloads needed in a stage.


Deep Carry Award?:
I LOVE the idea of recognizing those who "handicap themselves". i.e. DA guns and major calibers. But one other type of carry gun is being left out. Diminuitive carry guns. Walther PPS, all Kahrs, Sig 239's to name a few. These suffer from lower capacity. Maybe allow a catagory for "deep carry" where the major characteristic is a single stack mag that holds 7 or 8 rounds?

Bumps on grips:
As for gaming the grips to allow a magwell ... maybe stipulate it can't exceed the most narrow portion of the grips? Or that the grips aren't allowed if they are created with a wide spot to allow a magwell (gamer grips = gamer gear ... but we are sliding to some of the problems/definitions used in IDPA).


"Quick beeping":
Maybe just add a point of training to the SO's that the timer should not be beeped faster than X seconds (3?, 5?) after saying "standby". SO's that try to take you out of your zone should find another attitude. I think an SO should keep the delay between standby and beep as consistent as they can. There should NOT be rules to enforce this, SO training should suffice.

I've never noticed this before.


D zone equals zero:?
cmon! Getting winged in the shoulder or torso has got to count for something. I agree that it should count in scoring.

agreed


Save the 1911s:
Am I wrong, or are "low capacity" 1911's going to be handicapped by these rules? If so, I think allowing the 1911 in when it fits the box and weight limits, but allow a 10 round mag (that likely won't fit in the box) to be used. Cmon, it's their centenial birthday! ;) Limited 10 baby!

Haters gonna hate.


Holster Retention:
I agree on the gun retention, but admit I don't know much about the hybrid holsters? Maybe allow them a pass if they prove to be retentive when worn on the belt. That would be determined by some independent tester before the rules are changed (and not reconfirmed at each match).

Hammer Down:
The rules, as written, allow a competitor to dry fire into the berm prior to reholstering, they just don't require it. That should satisfy all.

Major Minor:
IMO the simplest way would be to group the allowable calibers into power ranges. Then report results into those ranges. I think a 3 groups would suffice. Minor Power: 9mm Mid Power: 40S&W + 357 sig Full Power: 45, 45GAP, 10mm I don't know enough about revolvers. Maybe "Minor": 38spl + .44 spl and "Magnum": .357 Mag + .44 Mag. Award competitors in each caliber range. Like what you are proposing now, with a mid power level in semi's.

I think that might be an administrative headache


One Day we need to POLL CCW holders:
Eventually, I'd say that any sport(s) that seeks to mimic CCW carry could commission a nationwide poll of concealed carriers on their gear ... and base their sport heavily that way. That would be a good way to not allow the exceptions to drive the sport. Also provide an argument for those who "know someone who CCW's 50 oz wondergun" ... you get the idea. This could help determine the entry requirements for USPSA production, IDPA too.

That would be PCCA woud it not? ;)


I'm still thinking thru the harder issues of power factor and determining a match score.

[ToddG]

Moon Clips:

SLG has direct access to some of the most accomplished and well known "action revolver" shooters in the country. He's taken on the task of consulting with them on this issue as well as the issue of >6rd revolvers.


Classifier

You're absolutely right that it does not reflect the stages themselves. Because the stages are designed by each club and can have a nearly infinite number of variables, it's almost impossible to run a Classifier that depends on them. Even in IPSC where there is a more varied approach you see plenty of people who sandbag and grandbag.

The difference is that using the FAST*3 we have something that can be administered easily and quickly and which can have its score directly plugged into the match. That makes sandbagging impossible and grandbagging costly.

Let's face it, the most legitimate way to advance is to do it through attrition at a major match. But even then, there's still a major random factor involved. The field of C-class shooters at the Nebraska State Championship might not be as strong as the field of C-class shooters at the Intergalactic Championship. Or simply by luck of attendance you could go to a major match with 21 C-class shooters versus 19, and now one more guy will get bumped to B-class.

Classification is difficult when you try to balance applicability to the sport with ease of administration while still maintaining something that will be identical no matter where you run it anywhere in the country.


IWB holsters only?:

I know far too many people who legitimately carry OWB.


Unlimited mags?:

As Wheeler pointed out, round count limitations and the requirement for concealment make this moot. If someone really wants to walk around with nine spare mags on his belt that's fine as long as he can conceal them. He's gaining no competitive advantage.


Load up to mag capacity?:
I have a suggestion for those who want to load up their mags (they always exist, and they are always vocal .... "it's not real world to down load my mags" etc). Allow competitors to load to 10+1 OR full capacity as a choice. Make them decide when they join KSTG, so they don't get to decide stage by stage, match by match. State prominently in your rules that the sport intends to test shooters ability to reload and that a reload is required on EVERY STAGE of 12 or more rounds. Since stages are capped at 20 rounds this will diminish the advantage of the load them up crowd, basically giving them more choices on reload locations, but rarely reducing the number of reloads needed in a stage.

The point of our reload rule is that we don't want to be dictating when/where/how people do reloads (except on the Classifier/FAST). If someone wants to complain about starting with a downloaded pistol because it's "not real world," I suppose we can let him load to full capacity and begin all his stages using a gun pointed at his head instead of a shot timer...


Deep Carry Award?:

That has merit. SLG and I will have to discuss.


Bumps on grips:

Your "I know gaming when I see it" approach probably would work, but it runs into the issue of inconsistency from club to club. One problem IDPA had early on is that it allowed clubs to make some subjective decisions about gear. Then a club shooter would show up at a state championship or the nationals and be told the gun he'd been using for two years was illegal... thank you for your patronage, you can't shoot the match, go home. Our thought process on the magwell rule was pretty straightforward" If it's no wider than the widest part of the grip then it's not an impediment to concealability. As long as it's not an impediment to concealability, we don't want to outlaw it. If it's something that gets abused we can always address it again in the future. FWIW, it was one of those rules that had us scratching our heads for hours and I think I can speak for SLG when saying it didn't feel perfect when we came up with our solution.


"Quick beeping":

Having been the victim of this myself in class settings, I agree there should be some specific instruction to ROs. Having said that, we don't want to get into arguments about it nor can we have the ROs on a stopwatch.

Not all shot timers have the same abilities in terms of delay. But can anyone think of a timer that lacks the ability to set the delay to exactly two seconds? We could just require the delay be set to two seconds and require the RO to say "standby" before hitting the button.


Save the 1911s:
Am I wrong, or are "low capacity" 1911's going to be handicapped by these rules? If so, I think allowing the 1911 in when it fits the box and weight limits, but allow a 10 round mag (that likely won't fit in the box) to be used. Cmon, it's their centenial birthday! ;) Limited 10 baby!

The rules do allow exactly that.


Holster Retention:

SLG and I have discussed this and I believe it is fair to say we are unsympathetic. "My type of holster won't do it" ... so should we compromise the rules or should people reconsider whether their chosen carry gear fails to meet a pretty straightforward safety/retention requirement? We vote "B."


Hammer Down:
The rules, as written, allow a competitor to dry fire into the berm prior to reholstering, they just don't require it. That should satisfy all.

Exactly.


Major Minor:

The problem with separating it by caliber alone is that someone will for example download .40 to powder puff levels.

[jlw]

Bravo ToddG and company!!!!

Here are some observations from me.


Classifier:
I don't like the classifier. It's certainly easy to administer, but the gulf between classifier skills and match skills will make it unuseful. Potential to have a lot of unintentional grand baggers AND sand baggers since it's so far off a match performance. I don't know what to put in it's place, but something with movement and obstacles will likely be needed.

I agree that the classifier isn't "valid" in that it doesn't really measure match skills. The same is true for IDPA.

IWB holsters only?:
I've thought about IDPA overhauls too. When I thought about making a more "tactical" game I thought about excluding light triggers (like minds!) But I also went as far to ONLY ALLOWING IWB concealed carry. This represents the way a majority of CCW holders carry and gets rid of silly holster rules. As it is now, you'll either need to specify holster gap limitations or end up with severely offset holsters (which gets away from the CCW gear). IDPA went thru this. Everyone I know who routinely carries owns at LEAST one IWB holster. Of course, that is a small sample. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that a poll would bear that out.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only time I carry IWB is if there is a need for deep cover, and then it is with a J frame or baby Glock in a bellyband with a shirt tucked in over it.

Load up to mag capacity?:
I have a suggestion for those who want to load up their mags (they always exist, and they are always vocal .... "it's not real world to down load my mags" etc). Allow competitors to load to 10+1 OR full capacity as a choice. Make them decide when they join KSTG, so they don't get to decide stage by stage, match by match. State prominently in your rules that the sport intends to test shooters ability to reload and that a reload is required on EVERY STAGE of 12 or more rounds. Since stages are capped at 20 rounds this will diminish the advantage of the load them up crowd, basically giving them more choices on reload locations, but rarely reducing the number of reloads needed in a stage.

I agree to a certain point, but keeping the capacity the same for everyone makes the reloads in the same places and also means there will be reloads on longer stages. There is also the issue of states where mag capacity limits are in place. I don't think that we should all bow down to those states, but we should at least acknowledge this for our fellow shooters trapped behind enemy lines.


D zone equals zero:?
cmon! Getting winged in the shoulder or torso has got to count for something. I agree that it should count in scoring.

Save the 1911s:
Am I wrong, or are "low capacity" 1911's going to be handicapped by these rules? If so, I think allowing the 1911 in when it fits the box and weight limits, but allow a 10 round mag (that likely won't fit in the box) to be used. Cmon, it's their centenial birthday! ;) Limited 10 baby!

Personally, anything that sticks it to the 1911 worshipers amuses me... ;)

[JeffJ]

If someone wants to complain about starting with a downloaded pistol because it's "not real world," I suppose we can let him load to full capacity and begin all his stages using a gun pointed at his head instead of a shot timer...


Awesome - you might have just won the Internet

[TheRoland]

SLG and I have discussed this and I believe it is fair to say we are unsympathetic. "My type of holster won't do it" ... so should we compromise the rules or should people reconsider whether their chosen carry gear fails to meet a pretty straightforward safety/retention requirement? We vote "B."


For people that don't carry AIWB, hybrid holsters are becoming extremely popular. When worn, they retain strongly and don't collapse (usually). In what way are they unsafe when used?

I think that unless you can articulate that, it's the rule, not the holster, that should be reconsidered. I don't mean to pick a fight, but possibly you and SLG have strong negative feelings about hybrids in general, and that's informing the level of sympathy?

[SLG]

For people that don't carry AIWB, hybrid holsters are becoming extremely popular. When worn, they retain strongly and don't collapse (usually). In what way are they unsafe when used?

I think that unless you can articulate that, it's the rule, not the holster, that should be reconsidered. I don't mean to pick a fight, but possibly you and SLG have strong negative feelings about hybrids in general, and that's informing the level of sympathy?


Funny you say that. I can't speak for Todd, but I think hybrid's are ugly. That's all I know about them. I certainly have not made any rule decisions about them based on that.

[ToddG]

There is no rule about hybrid holsters and no rule based on our particular like or dislike of any design or material. The retention requirement is something you would have heard from either of us before there ever was a hybrid, and it is entirely possible to make a hybrid with adequate retention.

Also, upon further discussion with SLG:

Revolver rule decisions

6rd capacity limit; if you want to shoot a revolver that holds more, you can load no more than 6 at a time
no moon clips

[jthhapkido]

There is no rule about hybrid holsters and no rule based on our particular like or dislike of any design or material. The retention requirement is something you would have heard from either of us before there ever was a hybrid, and it is entirely possible to make a hybrid with adequate retention.



I don't own a hybrid, nor have I ever tried one, so I literally have no opinion whatever on this topic....other than "it is entirely possible to make a hybrid with adequate retention" seems to be phrased strangely, as many people have already stated that the retention is excellent, when it is being worn. However, when it isn't being worn, it has a different shape, and therefore the retention level is different.

So, I guess my question is simply this: do you define "adequate retention" as "adequate retention as defined as circumstances that aren't about carrying" or "adequate retention when being worn"?

After all, isn't the point that the retention is adequate for use?

Besides, I think your retention test should either be 1) the competitor has to do a forward roll while wearing the firearm or 2) the competitor has to do 8 full jumping jacks (hey, 5 squat-jumps would work too!)---competitor's choice. If the gun comes out at all, they are DQed. :) Nice and simple!

[rsa-otc]

Let me say, I respect Todd & SLG for their work on this new competition discipline. I for one would not want to try to develop a new discipline and can see all the pit falls and perils that come along with the attempt. Whatever final product they come up with is fine by me and I hope I'll have an opportunity to give KSTG a try. With regards to holster retention. HMMMM a holster is designed to retain a gun while its being worn by the shooter. If a holster meets these design parameters and retains the gun while worn by the shooter, is it an unsafe holster if it doesn't retain the gun when taken off and turned upside down? Maybe a better test would be jumping up and down while the holster is worn and see is it retains the gun. Or maybe a simple device that tests the resistance to removal. A trigger scale with a harness that allows you to measure the resistance to drawing the weapon would not be hard to cobble together. If there is # lbs resistance the holster passes.

Thank You Todd & SLG

[kdmoore]

As promised, I know you were all waiting with baited breath, here are some thoughts on match scoring and on power factor. Take it for what it's worth, I'm spitballing and my ideas aren't for everyone.

Match scoring:
First off, I don't have a dog in this fight. I shoot the match as is ...

So this is mostly trying to help as I see your point about the small stages not getting enough weight in overall results .. I get it on an intellectual level but I don't win enough matches to really have a personal opinion.

There are two things that could be tried to see if it works.
First way: Dictate that short stages are multiplied by some factor. 10 might be too much but the math would be easier. So, the 2.31 seconds on the shorty stage becomes 23.10 The guy you beat had a 2.18, so he's now 21.80 so you are rewarded with a 1.3 second margin. Most match scoring is done on a computer with software or in a spreadsheet, you could change from the 10x to something better. Similarly, you could multiply a medium stage by a smaller multiplier. If you wanted to test it, I'd suggest revisiting some match results, and multiply short stages by 5. Adjust the multiplier till you are satisfied. You could apply similar logic to medium length stages using a smaller multiplier (start with 2?)

The other way puts a burden on the MD. But it entails striving to offer balanced matches. So maybe classify stages into short, med and long length. Ask MDs that matches all have 1 long, two medium and 5 short stages .... where the exact numbers are up for suggestion. Maybe just do this at major matches. If you wanted to make this a bit more structured then ... Have the MD ESTIMATE the time in short, med and long stages. To do this estimation, create a sort of par time for each stage. Base it on a particular level of skill, master class would be my suggestion. Every stage created would be broken down by the MD into parts for the sake of estimation. For instance, estimate gun retrieval (draw or table start, etc) ... add time for reload (if applicable), for target acquisitions, shot splits, shooter movement ... and likely other things I'm forgetting. Add all of these parts up to estimate a par time for a stage. The point isn't to make this a science, it's to make the match have balance between short, med and long stages. But we'll all realize it won't be perfectly balanced.

Example: MD ESTIMATES that the long stage is 19 seconds, and he has 2 medium stages that are 10 and 8 seconds (close enough!). But he estimates that his 4 short stages will total 13 seconds. So he is encouraged to add one or two more short stages to get CLOSE to 19 seconds. This way, if someone is great at short stages he doesn't need to worry that it's lost in overall match performance. Can't stress enough that the goal is to produce matches that are sort of balanced.



Power Factor:
These ideas were on mind when I suggested putting a mid power range into the mix and would get rid of the following concern

The problem with separating it by caliber alone is that someone will for example download .40 to powder puff levels. If we follow the below, a .40 reload would have to match .40 target ammo.

Also, giving credit, the following quotes led to my ideas.


... Just hit the local gunshop and pick up a couple boxes of Anything Off the Shelf in 9mm ...

...If we could just trust people to shoot factory power ammo...


Why not list 5ish ammo types for each caliber allowed that are sure to make the requirements? If you reload, duplicate that load.


re: power floors

Random thought of the morning, how about just requiring all ammo to fall within some reasonable limit (say -10%) of standard factor non-target, non-competition, non-+p velocity (or PF?) for a given caliber and bullet weight?

Obviously there would be a certain arbitrariness in setting "standard" but a quick look at the catalogs from the Big Three should be more than adequate.

It would solve the .38 problem while simultaneously preventing the ".45 minor" type issue we were trying to avoid in the first place.



What about having a box of "control ammo" ie: Winchester Value Pack to chrono against?
The competitor shoots five rounds of the control ammo and 5 rounds of their own ammo through their gun and the average PF must be within 5.
This takes most of the variables out.
If the control ammo is PF 115 through my Kahr PM9, then my chosen ammunition has to be 110+ through that same Kahr PM9.
If the control comes out of my H&K P30 at PF 128, then my ammo has to PF at 123+ out of my P30.

and possibly others

Get rid of PF altogether and just require competitor ammo meet a standard easily obtained ammo. My suggestion to pick these standard would be to test target ammo from the big three (win, fed and rem) in typical bullet weights and choose the most anemic. Picking the weakest means if it's sold out in a particular region then another popular target load would suffice. Then list those in place of appendix A. Specifically we are talking 9mm in 115, 124 and 147, 40S&W in 165 and 180, 45 in 200 and 230 and so on. I'm not married to any of these weights, add or remove at your own descression/opinion. For instance, some consider the 9mm 147gn to be gamey as it shoots soft and possibly was developed as a suppressor round, so you could decide to include it .... or not. Once you decide on what bullet weights and test the popular loads appendix A looks something like this.

9mm 115 Winchester white box
9mm 124 Federal
9mm 147 Rem UMC

40S&W 165 Fed
40S&W 180 Rem UMC

And so forth.

Of course you'd likely need a better description of the ammo. For instance, some winchester white box has a product code "Q4172", so the standard isn't ambigous. The above is made up and the actual standards should be researched in a range trip with a chrono.
Now, at the match you could randomly collect ammo from every competitor who indicates what standard he's chosen (i.e. Competitor A reports he's shooting 45ACP/230 gn). The "ammo standard test team" would need to have a single test firearm in each caliber and a box of each factory standard. They'd need to sort the ammo by caliber/weight. Then they'd test each ammo standard in a test gun, and then all competitor ammo for that standard. Move on to another caliber/weight combo and test again. This makes sense in my head but I likely need a better example.

So, you've sorted all competitor samples by ammo standard.

You have 12 baggies of 4 rounds each from 12 competitors who are shooting 40S&W in 180 gn. All info would be marked on each baggie, competitor name and caliber/bullet weight. Shoot 4 rounds of factory ammo thru the test gun and get an average velocity. Next shoot the ammo from competitor 1 and make sure it meets the same velocity, repeat for ammo from competitor 2-12.

Then, move on to the next caliber/weight and repeat. i.e. the group of 40S&W 160gn competitors.

The beauty here is we are declaring a major manufacture's ammo the minimum standard. The competitors guns ability to make velocity isn't in the equation, the temperature at match day isn't in question. The test isolates the standards performance in a test gun against competitors ammo in that same test gun (at roughly the same time ... so test conditions are same).

Another nice feature is the competitors gun isn't needed, so the test team could work during the match and there wouldn't be any bottlenecks like other chrono testing sometimes produces.

Major hurdles would be getting voluteers to produce a test gun. But most MD's/SO's/Match regulars have numerous guns in multiple calibers ... i.e. I have guns in most calibers you recognize (why are we letting in 44 spl? ;) ). For the rarer standards ... say 357 sig in 124 grain ... charge the competitor for a box of factory standard and then give him the left overs after the match. If you only have one competitor shooting a particular caliber (10mm ?) then request his gun be used as the test gun, shooting the factory ammo he purchased and his match ammo.

Note that the test team might need to pull a few bullets from the test to confirm their weight.

The cost of the test ammo could be taken out of match fees, and unused ammo could be sealed up and used for next match, so testing wouldn't
cost the Match very much money.

I know there are more details to work thru (I've thought of more and have answers to them) but the real question is .... "should we use factory target ammo as the minimum standard" instead of velocity out of a competitors gun. If the answer is yes we can figure out the details.

[kdmoore]

I think you have it backwards on the recoil of a 625 vs a 686.

I was assuming that both are shooting off the shelf ammo. No moon clips so it doesn't matter now.



[i]I disagree. Not everyone's body is suited to or preference is an IWB or AIWB.

And yet I still carry that way....



If the stage max is 20 rounds, and slidelock reloads are the only acceptable reloads, I fail to see the purpose of limiting mags other than as admnistrative?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding? Seems like you are free to "speed reload" as long as you aren't in the presence of unengaged targets? So in a simple stage that has two barricades with 6 rounds needed at each ... as soon as you finish engaging targets from B1 you can speed reload while heading to B2?

The only requirement for slide lock/emergency reload is:


f. Reload Under Fire: If a competitor is exposed to any Threat target which
has not been neutralized, he will be assessed a Procedural penalty for
performing any type of reload unless his weapon is empty (no round
chambered). This penalty applies if any part of the reload from beginning
(ejecting magazine or opening cylinder) to end (round chambered or
cylinder closed) is performed when the gun is not empty. There are no
other limitations on when or how competitors may reload their pistols
during a stage of fire

I'd love clarification.




You're absolutely right that it does not reflect the stages themselves. Because the stages are designed by each club and can have a nearly infinite number of variables, it's almost impossible to run a Classifier that depends on them. Even in IPSC where there is a more varied approach you see plenty of people who sandbag and grandbag.

The difference is that using the FAST*3 we have something that can be administered easily and quickly and which can have its score directly plugged into the match. That makes sandbagging impossible and grandbagging costly.

Let's face it, the most legitimate way to advance is to do it through attrition at a major match. But even then, there's still a major random factor involved. The field of C-class shooters at the Nebraska State Championship might not be as strong as the field of C-class shooters at the Intergalactic Championship. Or simply by luck of attendance you could go to a major match with 21 C-class shooters versus 19, and now one more guy will get bumped to B-class.

Classification is difficult when you try to balance applicability to the sport with ease of administration while still maintaining something that will be identical no matter where you run it anywhere in the country.


Agreed. I'm worried about unintentionally being miss classified. Folks who shoot fast but don't run much will look like grandbaggers, folks who excel in the myriad of other skills (entering and exiting shooting positions, shooting around barricades, speed reloads, etc) but aren't stand and shoot types might look like sand baggers. These terms have negative connotations, I guess a neutral term would be mis classified. Match bumps can fix underclassified but it will happen very slowly due to the few number of shooters who can get bumps. And they can never fix grandbaggers.

Agree that adding classifiers to matches defends against intentional sandbagging.

I'm not looking for a drastic change. Just suggest adding a barricade or two with movement.


I know far too many people who legitimately carry OWB.

I'd guess most of them own IWB holsters. I'd guess they are still a minority to IWB carry. Especially for summer carry. If you only look at hoster + belt ... its a lot harder to keep a handgun concealed in all but a closed coat. Blazers, vests, etc tend to open up at times. My OWB holsters are mostly used for open carry (gotta love VA!) and rarely for CCW. Vests can and do hide OWB when doing your test. But ask for the competitor to get in a booth, or in and out of a car, or run, etc, and it's harder to stay concealed.


The point of our reload rule is that we don't want to be dictating when/where/how people do reloads (except on the Classifier/FAST). If someone wants to complain about starting with a downloaded pistol because it's "not real world," I suppose we can let him load to full capacity and begin all his stages using a gun pointed at his head instead of a shot timer...


Lots of people can and do complain about downloaded mags. I'm not one of them, but I know many. Heck, one of my suggestions to the Tiger Teams would be to add to the inside of the front cover (in large print) "WE KNOW YOUR MAGS CAN HOLD MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS, BUT WE WANT YOU TO RELOAD DUMMIES!!!!"


Still, you are starting from further from the IDPA core, so I just suggest this for two reasons. First, limiting mags in free states will turn off some new shooters. I've seen it, and it sometimes just becomes one of those repeated truisms amongst those who haven't tried the sport. They say "I'm not shooting that sport, I don't want to be limited to 10 rounds in my p18" (or whatever). I know a lot of shooters who pick pistols because they carry a lot of ammo.


Second, this constantly comes up as a gripe amongst those critical of the claim of IDPA to be more RW. Seems like it's in every complaint thread over in the IDPA section of the benosverse.

IMHO, Uploading mags but requiring one reload per 12+ round stage isn't really dictating when/where or how people reload.

Lastly, Allowing full capacity mags really doesn't add much advantage if we are all reloading the same number of times. Full maggers will have more options, 10 rounders would have to choose reload points carefully, or just speed reload on the move well.



Your "I know gaming when I see it" approach probably would work, but it runs into the issue of inconsistency from club to club. One problem IDPA had early on is that it allowed clubs to make some subjective decisions about gear. Then a club shooter would show up at a state championship or the nationals and be told the gun he'd been using for two years was illegal... thank you for your patronage, you can't shoot the match, go home. Our thought process on the magwell rule was pretty straightforward" If it's no wider than the widest part of the grip then it's not an impediment to concealability. As long as it's not an impediment to concealability, we don't want to outlaw it. If it's something that gets abused we can always address it again in the future. FWIW, it was one of those rules that had us scratching our heads for hours and I think I can speak for SLG when saying it didn't feel perfect when we came up with our solution.


Agreed, except that there are currently no grips that I'm aware of that have random bumps added. Anyways, the second suggestion is likely better. Require the measurement be at the grips most narrow point.



The rules do allow exactly that.

Oops, I read that wrong and didn't notice the measured pistol is without mag.
I now realize that allowing full capacity mags might require a mag length limitation. Maybe not tho, requiring a reload makes the 17 round glock mag just as competitive as the 33 round mag .... even more so. I've shot 30 round mags in an outlaw 3gun match and I quickly came to the conclusion that I'd rather just reload than to deal with that awkward mag.



I agree to a certain point, but keeping the capacity the same for everyone makes the reloads in the same places and also means there will be reloads on longer stages. There is also the issue of states where mag capacity limits are in place. I don't think that we should all bow down to those states, but we should at least acknowledge this for our fellow shooters trapped behind enemy lines.

I thought introducing a bit of shooter freedom wouldn't be a bad thing and could distinguish this a bit from IDPA. With the requirement of a reload the 10 round users really aren't hampered much.


OI don't know about you but a national poll of carry gear to decide what is allowed seems like a bad idea. We would all end up with j frames and no reloads. Seriously though I carry what I carry because it works. Not everyone carries an extra mag, not everyone carries that mag on their belt. I do because it is the superior way to carry a mag. I think most of us here are "exceptions" carrying full or close to full size guns and reloads knives and flashlights. Anyone who is serious about what they do will be an exception to the rule. It's what seperates professionals and serious amateurs from Joe schmoe concealed carry guy.

Just need to word the poll to answer the question you want answered. For instance, maybe you are wondering about the use of the the G34/35 by actual CCW ers. So you just ask "what's the largest handgun you routinely carry" or "are you more likely to carry a G34/35 or a G17/22 or a G19/23"

Other examples "how do you carry extra mags" , "how do you carry a light"

Reinforcing (i.e. kicking a dead horse ;) ) you could ask "when carrying mid or full sized service pistols, what percentage of the time do you carry OWB vs IWB?" or "do you own an IWB holster for your largest EDC gun" (just piling on Todd! heh)

Point is you could preface questions with clarifications such as "when carrying a gun on your belt ... " or "when carrying extra ammo" etc.

The suggestion is for the future. I'm appalled IDPA hasn't done this, given their stated goal of reflecting EDC, etc.

If we ever decided to poll, I think it could take a LOT of prework to get the wording right and not skew the responses, yet focus the poll on points we care about.

[GForceLizard]

Let's hear what others think about the G34/G35 for a game designed around CCW...

Note: I've only read up to post #66.

Rules is rules but G34/35 illegal because the barrel is 5.32" not 5". Custom 5" wide body 2011 is legal if I tune the trigger to no less than 4#. Just, sayin'.

You'll never please everyone.

[GForceLizard]

I like your chronograph rules for the same reason I like the USPSA chronograph rules. Your ammo must make power out of your gun. If you shoot a shorter barrel then you need a little more push to make power. It's realistic, if I shoot a 3" gun I need stronger ammo to match the power of a load out of a 5" gun.

[GForceLizard]

Lots of people dislike USPSA scoring but... You could always score each stage as you have outlined. Then scale each stage like it was a 100 point USPSA stage. Winner of the stage gets 100 points. If your time was twice as long you get 50 points, etc. Match score is the sum of all scaled stage scores. That way every stage no matter how short or long has the same weight in the final match results. It might also minimize the effect of having one really bad stage performance. It is less transparent and requires some calculation.

[ToddG]

Besides, I think your retention test should either be 1) the competitor has to do a forward roll while wearing the firearm or 2) the competitor has to do 8 full jumping jacks (hey, 5 squat-jumps would work too!)---competitor's choice. If the gun comes out at all, they are DQed. :) Nice and simple!

A number of folks have recommended some kind of "shooter activity" test but they all run into problems.

First, not all shooters will have the physicality required to do handstands, forward rolls, or even jump up and down.

Second, being able to do a jumping jack is not the same as having a gun that is properly secured.

Third, we don't want an issue where an RO is saying "jump higher" etc. It becomes subjective.

We acknowledge the rule is imperfect. All of the alternatives that have been suggested -- and all the alternatives we considered in the beginning -- were deemed less perfect.

[ToddG]

SLG and I spent a while today discussing the Classification system.

Originally, we vacillated between five or six seconds as the standard for Master, which would translate into either fifteen or eighteen seconds as the bar to reach for Master class in the Classifier (which is the F.A.S.T. three times in a row). We finally settled on five seconds back then because we assumed as the sport grew more people would "perfect" the F.A.S.T. and getting sub-5 clean runs would become commonplace among better shooters.

Over the past few years of teaching, I've seen plenty of dedicated shooters who were highly motivated to win a coin (which requires just two out of three runs to be sub-5 and clean)... very, very few of them have succeeded. As such, the idea of having the bar at 15 seconds seemed perhaps a bit too high.

So we're considering bringing it back to 18 seconds. All of the other times flow from there. Revolver Master is just one extra second per run for the reload, so it would go from 18 seconds to 21 seconds. "A" is 125% of "Master," "B" is 130% of "A," and "C" is 140% of "B." So the new scheme would look like this:




Semiauto
Revolver


Master
18.00 seconds or less
21.00 seconds or less


A class
18.01 - 22.50 seconds
21.01 - 26.25 seconds


B class
22.51 - 29.25 seconds
26.26 - 34.13 seconds


C class
29.26 - 40.95 seconds
34.14 - 47.78 seconds


D class
40.96 seconds or more
47.79 seconds or more



Alternatively, in the spirit of the head-to-head nature of the rules, with the additional second we're giving semiautos at the Master level, we could just eliminate the distinction between semi and revo in the classification system. Everyone, regardless of gun, would classify using the semiauto numbers above.

If the game were ever to grow enough that there was a glut of Master class shooters of widely varying skill level at the top, we can easily create a GM-type classification and use 15.00 seconds as that limit.

Taking pistol-training.com scoring in mind, that is fairly consistent with Master being the equivalent to Expert, A is Advanced, and B is intermediate. It's not perfect, but the PTC version is based on a best-of while the KSTG is cumulative.

[JodyH]

Taking my last practice session FAST runs I'd be right above 15 seconds.
Add in 3 seconds for the stress of doing it as a classifier and I'd probably be a solid A, might luck into Master.
I'm classified as a SSP EX on the verge of MA in IDPA (I'm pretty sure I could ace the classifier if I actually practiced it and "gamed it").
In USPSA I'm a B-Limited shooter, but I do not "game" the matches at all, in fact I pretty much handicap myself with my gear (although I do pull out the occasional match win against A and MA shooters).
So it looks like your classifications might be a little "soft" to me.
I think 15 would be the better goal for MA, especially if people "practiced" the FAST.

[jthhapkido]

A number of folks have recommended some kind of "shooter activity" test but they all run into problems.

First, not all shooters will have the physicality required to do handstands, forward rolls, or even jump up and down.

Second, being able to do a jumping jack is not the same as having a gun that is properly secured.

Third, we don't want an issue where an RO is saying "jump higher" etc. It becomes subjective.

We acknowledge the rule is imperfect. All of the alternatives that have been suggested -- and all the alternatives we considered in the beginning -- were deemed less perfect.

[Apparently my smiley didn't make it clear that I was kidding about the rolls and the jumping jacks.]

Do you settle on a power factor idea? Or still running with the muzzle energy/power factor original idea?

[Wheeler]

Taking my last practice session FAST runs I'd be right above 15 seconds.
Add in 3 seconds for the stress of doing it as a classifier and I'd probably be a solid A, might luck into Master.
I'm classified as a SSP EX on the verge of MA in IDPA (I'm pretty sure I could ace the classifier if I actually practiced it and "gamed it").
In USPSA I'm a B-Limited shooter, but I do not "game" the matches at all, in fact I pretty much handicap myself with my gear (although I do pull out the occasional match win against A and MA shooters).
So it looks like your classifications might be a little "soft" to me.
I think 15 would be the better goal for MA, especially if people "practiced" the FAST.

Gamers are gonna game, no matter what you do. If they practice and practice and can ace the classifier, it'll bite them in the match when they can't compete at a Master level.

[JAD]

Classifier (which is the F.A.S.T. three times in a row).

So a fast reload is about 2 seconds; so 6/15, or 20%, of the classifier is reloading speed.

Huh. Well, I guess I haven't seen that many good shooters who werent pretty fast from slidelock.

[Little Creek]

I think there are fewer people who could do a FAST with a self defense style revolver in 6 seconds than there are who can do a FAST with an auto in 5 seconds. I also believe that the time gap between reloading a revolver and reloading an auto is more than one second for the vast majority of people. I am talking about shot to shot. Of course an expert revolver shooter might out shoot a novice auto shooter some of the time. Should revolvers compete on a level playing field with autos? Yes, but only when there are 6 or less shots per string and no reloads. I like autos and revolvers. I think it would be a worthy goal to qualify Master in KSTG with both.

[theblacknight]

So if I wanted to use my MTAC, could I just crank the retention for the hang test, and then back it off to normal? I tried draws last night after a hang test and couldn't get it out of my pants.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[ToddG]

So if I wanted to use my MTAC, could I just crank the retention for the hang test, and then back it off to normal? I tried draws last night after a hang test and couldn't get it out of my pants.

No.

I'll have to get my hands on one at some point and play with it.

Like I said, the challenge is coming up with an objective, repeatable test. I can push up on the frontstrap of a holstered gun and make a determination of whether the retention is adequate, but that's not going to be exactly the same amount of force every time for every competitor by every RO.

[joshs]

I can push up on the frontstrap of a holstered gun and make a determination of whether the retention is adequate, but that's not going to be exactly the same amount of force every time for every competitor by every RO.

Why not do that with a scale? Come up with a weight that provides adequate retention and test while the shooter is wearing the holster. This should give the objective test you are looking for and provide with a way to test while the holster is worn.

[ToddG]

Why not do that with a scale? Come up with a weight that provides adequate retention and test while the shooter is wearing the holster. This should give the objective test you are looking for and provide with a way to test while the holster is worn.

Because it adds to the amount of stuff a club would need to buy.

[joshs]

Because it adds to the amount of stuff a club would need to buy.

Isn't there already a minimum trigger weight? Why not use the same scale for both?

[fuse]

How about IWB holsters just get a pass on the drop test, if needed.

Has anyone ever had trouble with retaining the gun while jumping/running while carrying IWB?

Seems like a resolution looking for a problem.

[JV_]

Has anyone ever had trouble with retaining the gun while jumping/running while carrying IWB?I've had mags fall out of pouches.

[SLG]

How about IWB holsters just get a pass on the drop test, if needed.

Has anyone ever had trouble with retaining the gun while jumping/running while carrying IWB?

Seems like a resolution looking for a problem.

I lost a pistol out of a very high quality, well known IWB holster a few years ago. Nothing bad happened, but it was VERY embarrassing. In all fairness, I was upside down at the time, but I do expect a holster to allow that, and since I find myself in that position from time to time, it does matter. Suffice it to say, there was nothing "defective" about the holster, so I just won't use that makers products any more.

[JAD]

I was upside down at the time
Dude, we all have struggled with the housing bubble, but that's no excuse to be tossing your pistol around.

[theblacknight]

I've skateboarded w my mtac/mp9 fs, as well as rode some carnie rides. Id more then happy to bust out somw handstand pushups just for shits.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[fuse]

Fair enough. I shall return to deferring to the experts.

[TheRoland]

To be clear, I understand the difficulty with an alternate retention test, it just seemed like a large segment of the IWB market was being unintentionally excluded.

Overall, this sounds like a game I'd really like to play.

[theblacknight]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Wk5ikXWivUmB2deeoXxN1Jvkmr28O5mUmQA7Wu67wQ-W__J9r2sE5uoOEyQomuQNJHTVQ6zSZfRxDecM1bWXctXfn_Ei2 ccFGKWXRXlDFcdaLPk19XE

[cclaxton]

Let's hear what others think about the G34/G35 for a game designed around CCW...

I would argue the main reason to allow Glock 34/35 is because of the population used in IDPA and the number of shooters who use them all the time in IDPA and IPSC. After all, this is a GAME, right?

If the argument is that the 34/35 gives a shooter an advantage, then perhaps we should be arguing FOR CCW with longer barrels?

Perhaps a compromise is to find a way to adjust the points when shooting with a 34/35/etc.? Could we give them their own division?

I would be interested in a survey/poll to find out how many people truly carry the firearm (or a nearly identical firearm) that they use in competition. I am guessing that most people compete with a different gun in IDPA and definitely IPSC.

I compete with a Glock 34 in SSP, and a Cz75 in ESP for IDPA, and I actually carry a Kahr PM9 or a Cz2075 RAMI and sometimes a Bersa .380CC(hot weather). In a gunfight/defense it all comes down to shot placement, draw speed, shot speed, tactics, and judgement anyway. If the goal is to more accurately compete using CCW weapons, perhaps the barrel length should be a maximum of 4" for CCW weapons and 5.5" for CCW-LongBarrel class?

While you are at it, why not create a division for BUG class guns, with 3.6" barrels and .32/.380 caliber guns. You might attract more women to the game that way....always a good idea IMHO. (Not suggesting women can't shoot major and 9mm class....but the statistics suggest women choose smaller caliber guns.)
CC

[John Hearne]

I would be interested in a survey/poll to find out how many people truly carry the firearm (or a nearly identical firearm) that they use in competition. I am guessing that most people compete with a different gun in IDPA and definitely IPSC.


I can save you a lot of work - not many. For most folks IDPA and IPSC is a game and the best case scenario is that they have a Kel-Tec .32 stuck in a pocket. The folks on this board are all outliers, it's just a matter of how many standard deviations they are from the base line.

I like the KTSG concept, I just don't like the weight limit which will likely exclude my stainless Sigs, which I do carry every day. But, I also use open top magazine pouches on my duty rig 'cause I like every reasonable advantage I can get.

[cclaxton]

Here's another thought on the 5" barrel limitation: The Cz75B has a 4.7" barrel and weighs about 39oz and is slightly longer than a Glock 34 and will fit into an IDPA box, but yet the Glock 34/35 can't be used and it has a 5.3" barrel and weighs less than the Cz75B.

I like the IDPA rule: If it fits in the box and weighs less than X (where X depends on the division), then it should be allowed. In fact, I would like to see the IDPA rule changed to allow more weight for SSP and another division below that with a smaller box and lower weight. Let's call it COMPACT DIVISION. This makes it different from BUG division.

I would suggest a box that fits 7" long guns and weighs no more than 31oz. (Glock, Springfield, Cz, Sig, Ruger, Walther, Kahr, Bersa, etc. all have guns that fit this category in 9mm and most in .40 as well.)
That way you are accomodating the entire range of shooters and CCW.
CC

[ToddG]

We're very specifically trying not to create multiple divisions. We could solve everything in the world by creating "Todd's division" and "SLG's division" and another division for each person's ideal setup.

[ToddG]

Rule changes codified in the Dec'11 draft:


no moon clip revolvers
must have both feet on the ground when shooting around the side of vertical cover
SERPA and similar holsters banned
base "Master" Classifier score changed from 5.00 to 6.00, with all other times adjusted appropriately

[jar]

We're very specifically trying not to create multiple divisions. We could solve everything in the world by creating "Todd's division" and "SLG's division" and another division for each person's ideal setup.

And I, for one, commend you for that. I've been enjoying shooting 3 gun, rifle, and shotgun, where I get to compete against 80%+ of match attendees. There's not much pride to be had in coming in first in left handed shooters whose barrel length is between 4.9 and 5.1 inches and trigger weight is between 4.0 and 4.5 pounds shooting ammo with a power factor between 131.4 and 134.5 division.

[Little Creek]

Why no moon clip revolvers?

[Little Creek]

There is no rule about hybrid holsters and no rule based on our particular like or dislike of any design or material. The retention requirement is something you would have heard from either of us before there ever was a hybrid, and it is entirely possible to make a hybrid with adequate retention.

Also, upon further discussion with SLG:

Revolver rule decisions

6rd capacity limit; if you want to shoot a revolver that holds more, you can load no more than 6 at a time
no moon clips


I do not understand why the "no moon clips". Is technology good for autos, but not revolvers? The fastest reload with a revolver is a moon clip. Reloads with a moon clip are less likely to be fumbled than reloads with a speed loader. Do auto shooters feel threatened by revolvers? It appears that revolvers are being given lip service at best.

[ToddG]

Two reasons. which I'm sure were outlined previously in the thread:

The number of people who actually carry moon clip revolvers every day is very close to zero.
If moon clip revolvers are allowed, moon clip revolvers will be necessary. You won't be competitive unless you have a moon clip revolver. So the guy who honestly CCWs a .38 every day will have to go out and buy specialized competition-only gear just to play.

[Tinygnat219]

ToddG,

TJ here from last nights KSTG Shoot. Just wanted to say Thank You once again for putting this match on. Myself and Kent (the revolver guy) had a good time. What I liked about this shoot is how it made me think about my gear selections and the direction I need to go to improve my skills.

Here's what I found that I think I need to work on:
- Remember the Flashlight. Mine is sitting in my vest at home. Having one with a clip is worth it. Baxter was nice enough to loan me his. I normally don't have one as part of my carry setup. That's gotta change.
- Night Sights are worth the extra money. They saved my ass on the lowlight shoot. They were handy, but a little confusing with the
Trijicon 3 dot setup I currently have. I am going to try and get all my carry guns setup for just the XS Big Dot front sight to eliminate future confusion.
- Mag holders are worth it. I normally don't carry one, but have a spare magazine in my pocket. I discovered that reloads go WAY faster with even the bulkiest of gear. I need to look at my gear for this one as I used a Police Surplus setup I got in a trade. It worked, but I am certain there are better ones out there that can assist me in improving my speed.
- Glock 19 Gen 4. Nice gun to shoot in this kind of game. I used to not like the grip of the Gen 4, but it worked very nice during the move and shoot. I have since re-evaluated my opinion and I have a MUCH higher opinion of the Glock 19 Generation 4.
-These games are not meant for revolvers. Way too many reloads needed and the round count for each stage is high. Still, since I do carry a J-Frame
from time to time, I want to try it out in a match like this sometime.


From Kent as to what he feels he needs to work on:
-Low Light Shooting/Flashlight work -- this is the first time I've ever done it, technique needs work
-Reloading -- I never practice reloading under stress...
-Off-Vertical Shooting -- shots land in funny places when the sights aren't perfectly horizontal/the gun isn't perfectly vertical
-Off-Balance Shooting -- shooting while leaning over feels unnatural (and it should)

Physical Issues:
-T-grip fell apart (and discovered that I shoot OK without it)
-Speedloaders and my current grips don't work well together
-Having a revolver with 6 rounds would sure have been nice for some targets/stages (last target on the 1st stage, for instance, needed six rounds)
-Handloads were too smoky for low-light/flash-light use (first shot and I lost my sight picture, all the smoke obscured the target, and all I could do was point-shoot for the rest of the stage)

Things that went well:
-"Adjusting-fire" to prefer the speed-strips to load instead of the speedloaders
-literally adjusting-fire during the FAST Drills when I discovered my shots were landing a little high
-point shooting works surprisingly well for me

All in all, we enjoyed the hell out of the match. I am going to write a nice letter to the person in charge of the Range and activities. This area is WAY too short on matches like this, and if I learned this much from one match such as this, I can only imagine the benefits of having more matches. I would like to see the rule about moonclip revolvers not being allowed possibly changed. That change might help more revolver shooters enter the fray. I have a S&W 940 and a Ruger SP101 in 9MM that I would love to try out in this kind of setup. That being said, we're looking forward to the next match.

Well Done!

TJ

[cclaxton]

Todd,
I enjoyed shooting the stages and classifier and here is my feedback:

1) I like the tape on the floor to indicate cover. However, I could see how this might limit stage design for targets that are at an acute angle to cover. Perhaps you could have different strips of tape for each target, but then stage setup gets more complicated.
2) I like the 3x5 white cards for the head shots...puts emphasis on getting into the brain chamber, but makes shooting fast much harder. OK by me, though.
3) I like the scoring system...it seems to put the emphasis where its needed.
4) I liked the simplicity of the classifier, but I actually missed the weak hand and strong hand only shots.
5) I kinda don't care about the mag drop rules...I can do it either way.
6) I like the rule about not crowding cover...that is the way I like to shoot anyway.

A) I like the consistency of an IDPA match where I know the gun is unloaded at the end of a COF. I do not like leaving the gun loaded and trying to remember how many I may or may not have in the mag. I recommend unloading the gun every time.
B) I don't like the 5" barrel restriction. The equipment rule should be like the IDPA rule: If it fits inside the box and weights less than X, where X is defined by Division, then its legal. If you want to make the box smaller or lower the weight, that is fine, but barrel length should not be a factor...size and weight should be. Beyond that, there are just too many Glock 34's in the hands of competitors. If you want this to catch on and gain political influence, you need to include Glock 34 shooters. Or, as I suggested, define a COMPACT DIVISION....which I still think is a huge opportunity.
C) For lowlight COF like the first stage, there should be a way to balance the advantage of gun-mounted lights with handheld lights or no light. Maybe add .5sec penalty for each target shot with a gun-mounted light?...don't know, but seems to be too much advantage there.

I think this experimental program is great, but in the end I think these ideas need to take root in the IDPA Tiger Teams and need to become a part of the changes coming to IDPA shooting sports. I just don't see KSTG being different enough that it can become a significant differentiator in competitive shooting. I do think it can act as a lab for trying out new ideas, which I am always willing to try.

But trust me on the Glock 34 thing.

CC

[PPGMD]

- Night Sights are worth the extra money. They saved my ass on the lowlight shoot. They were handy, but a little confusing with the
Trijicon 3 dot setup I currently have. I am going to try and get all my carry guns setup for just the XS Big Dot front sight to eliminate future confusion.

Another option is yellow tubes in the rear sight. If I have the option all my rear tubes are yellow.

[ToddG]

A) I like the consistency of an IDPA match where I know the gun is unloaded at the end of a COF. I do not like leaving the gun loaded and trying to remember how many I may or may not have in the mag. I recommend unloading the gun every time.

We ran it hot because it was a one-bay match and we have to put six people through every stage in an hour. Loading and unloading each person four or five times eats up minutes of our hour. It's a trade-off.


If you want to make the box smaller or lower the weight, that is fine,

Our box is smaller.

We had two people show up with G34s last night. One was chagrined and said he'd bring his G19 next time. The other was upset: "That's the stupidest rule I've ever heard, don't you know the G34 is the most popular gun in IDPA?" To which I simply responded that our game was based on CCW gear, not IDPA gear. It's noteworthy that the second person also admitted that a G19, not a G34, was the actual CCW gun carried every day.


C) For lowlight COF like the first stage, there should be a way to balance the advantage of gun-mounted lights with handheld lights or no light. Maybe add .5sec penalty for each target shot with a gun-mounted light?...don't know, but seems to be too much advantage there.

If there is an advantage to having a light on the gun, why would we penalize someone? We don't penalize people for having night sights, and they provide a huge benefit in low light. We don't penalize lasers. Etc. And since mounted lights are only allowed on stages where the gun begins out of the holster, anyone with a WML-capable gun can use one even if he doesn't normally CCW that way or have a holster that accommodates a light. For stages that begin in the holster, no one can use a WML.


I just don't see KSTG being different enough that it can become a significant differentiator in competitive shooting.

We're not trying to create the next USPSA or IDPA. We made rules for a game that we wanted to play. It doesn't need to grow. It might never go beyond the NRA Range club matches. But until we see what the IDPA Tiger Teams actually do -- will they allow aiwb? will they eliminate the round dumping rule? will they fix their ridiculous reload rules? -- there's no telling what might happen there.

[b]I don't shoot IDPA because I don't like some of the rules.[b] If someone says I don't shoot KSTG because I don't like some of the rules, that is perfectly OK with us. We're not trying to be all things to all people.

[PPGMD]

Ok I wasn't there so my opinion is based on watching the videos. The cover lines really limit things.

Based on the video it seems that the cover lines are based on the furthermost out target. But the problem with that, in order to stay in his cover while engaging the other targets you have to bend pretty far over based on the videos. Being that far over isn't a position that everyone can do, I know for me doing that on the right hand side can be troublesome these days.

IMO this is a problem that IDPA has been trying to deal with for the longest time, and there really isn't a good solution.

[BN]

So the guy who honestly CCWs a .38 every day will have to go out and buy specialized competition-only gear just to play.[/list]

Todd, I don't think .38 revolvers will be able to play if the power factor is kept at 300fpe. I haven't found any factory .38 special loads that will make it.

[ToddG]

You're exactly right, Bill. We know we need to change the power floor issue.

G34 Thought of the Day: Every time someone tells us we have to include the G34 because it's the predominant gun in IDPA, it just proves our point that if we allow it, people will use the G34 instead of their practical CCW gun.

[kle]

Two reasons. which I'm sure were outlined previously in the thread:

The number of people who actually carry moon clip revolvers every day is very close to zero.
If moon clip revolvers are allowed, moon clip revolvers will be necessary. You won't be competitive unless you have a moon clip revolver. So the guy who honestly CCWs a .38 every day will have to go out and buy specialized competition-only gear just to play.

The S&W 442-1 Pro Series that I used last night (and is in fact my EDC) is factory-machined to use moonclips (though rounds can still headspace on the rim), and I keep it loaded with 5 moonclipped-rounds (if for no other reason than loading and unloading it when I need to is easier and I don't have to fiddle with loose rounds or a loading device). I actually missed the rule prohibiting moonclips (EDIT: or I was working from an earlier version of the rules that didn't have the moonclip-prohibition); I ran the gun last night without them anyway because I figured it was in the spirit of the rules (and conincidentally it was within the letter of the rules, too), with the calibers being limited to the popular rimmed, not-usually-moonclipped revolver calibers (.38SPL, .357 Mag, .44SPL, .44 Mag).

I agree that those who carry revolvers-only are probably few and far between, and among them even fewer will carry moonclip-capable revolvers, and I'm confident that those who HAVE moonclip-capable revolvers will almost certainly also have one that can use non-moonclipped ammo (and also conforms to the KSTG rules). So I'm in favor of keeping the rules as they are.

[SLG]

The S&W 442-1 Pro Series that I used last night (and is in fact my EDC) is factory-machined to use moonclips (though rounds can still headspace on the rim), and I keep it loaded with 5 moonclipped-rounds (if for no other reason than loading and unloading it when I need to is easier and I don't have to fiddle with loose rounds or a loading device). I actually missed the rule prohibiting moonclips (EDIT: or I was working from an earlier version of the rules that didn't have the moonclip-prohibition); I ran the gun last night without them anyway because I figured it was in the spirit of the rules (and conincidentally it was within the letter of the rules, too), with the calibers being limited to the popular rimmed, not-usually-moonclipped revolver calibers (.38SPL, .357 Mag, .44SPL, .44 Mag).

I agree that those who carry revolvers-only are probably few and far between, and among them even fewer will carry moonclip-capable revolvers, and I'm confident that those who HAVE moonclip-capable revolvers will almost certainly also have one that can use non-moonclipped ammo (and also conforms to the KSTG rules). So I'm in favor of keeping the rules as they are.

Finally! A guy who actually carries a revolver, who actually competed with it (even though it wasn't the most "competitive " choice), who actually carries moon clips, who actually understands why the rules don't allow moon clips, and who is actually ok with it. Good show!

Maybe a G34 shooter will learn something from kle.

[CMG]

G34 Thought of the Day: Every time someone tells us we have to include the G34 because it's the predominant gun in IDPA, it just proves our point that if we allow it, people will use the G34 instead of their practical CCW gun.
The flip side to this is you will know when KSTG becomes popular because Glock will build a special pistol to take maximum advantage of your limitations. :)

[OneAboveAll]

You're exactly right, Bill. We know we need to change the power floor issue.

G34 Thought of the Day: Every time someone tells us we have to include the G34 because it's the predominant gun in IDPA, it just proves our point that if we allow it, people will use the G34 instead of their practical CCW gun.

You actually think people will go out their way to buy a glock 34 to compete? Why don't you just change the game to 1 gun only while you are at it.

Common sense here

KSTG evolved from other popular competitive shooting sports such as IPSC and IDPA.

Both sports allow the glock 34.

Maybe we can rename KSTG to TGPG Todd G Personal Game

[jlw]

You actually think people will go out their way to buy a glock 34 to compete? Why don't you just change the game to 1 gun only while you are at it.

Common sense here

KSTG evolved from other popular competitive shooting sports such as IPSC and IDPA.

Both sports allow the glock 34.

Maybe we can rename KSTG to TGPG Todd G Personal Game

Come on, now. IDPA has arbitrary rules too, and at least TLG and company are willing to interact directly on them. Why is CDP .45 ACP only? Because Bill Wilson wants it that way. That's why.

Are you really asserting that people didn't go out and by the G34/35 strictly to shoot the gun games?

If you don't like it. Don't shoot it. There is no need to get personal about it.

[SLG]

You actually think people will go out their way to buy a glock 34 to compete? Why don't you just change the game to 1 gun only while you are at it.

Common sense here

KSTG evolved from other popular competitive shooting sports such as IPSC and IDPA.

Both sports allow the glock 34.

Maybe we can rename KSTG to TGPG Todd G Personal Game

I'm going to let Todd handle this one (if he wants to) since I don't think I can stay polite.

[LittleLebowski]

You actually think people will go out their way to buy a glock 34 to compete? Why don't you just change the game to 1 gun only while you are at it.

Common sense here

KSTG evolved from other popular competitive shooting sports such as IPSC and IDPA.

Both sports allow the glock 34.

Maybe we can rename KSTG to TGPG Todd G Personal Game

That's an asshole thing to say. Todd busted his ass, on his feet for hours to give me and many others the the first pistol match within less than 2 hours one way of driving in literally years. Why don't you dial down the snide passive aggressive attacks?

[Failure2Stop]

One thing I really like about this (despite the fact that I ate two procedurals) is that most of the rules just flat out make sense.
Don't like the rules?
Don't play the game.

[ToddG]

You actually think people will go out their way to buy a glock 34 to compete?

You actually think those thousands and thousands of IDPA & USPSA competitors bought G34s for some other reason?


Why don't you just change the game to 1 gun only while you are at it.

The rules already explicitly state that you may only shoot one gun.


KSTG evolved from other popular competitive shooting sports such as IPSC and IDPA.

FYI I was actually sort of there when KSTG evolved, but I appreciate the reminder. :cool:


Maybe we can rename KSTG to TGPG Todd G Personal Game

Ironically, that is what I wanted to call it originally. SLG got upset just because he did half the work. He's a bastard that way.

Look, dude. Thirty-four people managed to show up at the inaugural match with something other than a G34. They didn't complain. Two others brought G34s and both said they'd be back next time shooting something other than a G34. This is not a G34-friendly game. Don't like it? Don't play. I assure you, we're already over it.

To the folks who were there last night and had fun, thanks again! Hopefully, we'll have a date for January's match soon.

[JConn]

Seriously. This game doesn't allow me to play with my carry gear. You know what I did, took off my wml and brought a different holster. If you don't want to play, don't. These rules are well thought out.

[JodyH]

I had a guy complain about penalties on disappearing targets at our local unsanctioned 3-gun match, he kept saying that "nobody's rules have a penalty for disappearing targets".
I finally told him "that's OUR rule, take it or leave it."

[cclaxton]

I think Todd's intentions are good, so we should definitely be courteous when we disagree. I am gonna agree with Todd on the need for more reality of firearms used in the game, but disagree on how it is currently being done.

I want to continue to make a similar but related point that barrel length should have nothing to do with whether a gun is allowed in the KSTG game. It should be gun size and weight....nothing more. Barrel length should be taken out of consideration entirely.

The truth is that there is a huge amount of diversity of guns actually carried. Many will carry the same gun they use for competing. Others will carry different guns depending on the season or depending on ability to conceal, etc. There are people to carry a 34...that is a fact.

If we had the money it would be good to do a poll of people who actually carry concealed and ask them to measure the size and weight of their guns and come up with a true statistical model with mean, median, deviation, etc. Then we could use solid concealed firearm data to set the size and weight limit based on a rule, such as: guns smaller and lighter than the 90th percentile will be allowed.

But anybody paying attention knows the popularity of small carry guns right now:
9mm Guns 6" or UNDER in length and 21oz or UNDER in weight:
Kahr PM/CM,
Ruger LC9,
SCCY Gen 2,
Glock 26,
SigSauer P290,
Kel-Tec PF-11,
Kimber Solo,
Beretta Nano,
Kel-Tec PF-9.

9mm Guns 6.85" or UNDER in length and 29oz or UNDER in weight:
Walther PPS,
Cz 2075 RAMI,
SigSauer P250,
Beretta PX4 Subcompact,
Taurus Millenium Pro,
Walther P99 Compact,
Taurus 709B, Bersa UC,
Springfield XD Subcompact,
S&W M&P Compact 9mm,
Bersa BP CC 9,
Ruger SR9c,
Glock G19,
SigSauer P239
(And this isn't a complete list)

That doesn't include everyone carrying .380 guns, which almost all are smaller and lighter that the 9mm list. Please don't take offense that I didn't include .45 or .40 or .357 or other calibers....I am just trying to make the case that it is likely most people who concealed carry are using guns that are smaller and lighter. On this point I support Todd's position and agree with it.

But when you look up the barrel length on these guns, they vary a lot. The key attributes of picking a carry gun is not how long of a barrel...it is the handguns ease of concealed carry and its other attributes that make it easy to operate and carry sufficient ammunition and caliber. My point here is that size and weight are much more important.

This is why I am advocating for a COMPACT DIVISION for concealed carry. That way John Doe with a smallish 9mm carry gun like a KelTec or a Taurus can actually BE competitive with other shooters of similar sized firearms. My Cz 75 won't play, but my Cz 2075 will. THEN go ahead and let the 34's play in the FULLSIZED DIVISION.

That makes everybody feel included and may actually make a more popular division among people who ordinarily would not try to compete with speed demons running 34's or Cz 75's.

I am not trying to make the game harder...I am trying to get more new people to participate and making a new COMPACT DIVISION allows Todd to get his wish and the 34 owners to get theirs.

Later,
CC

[ToddG]

I think a large part of the problem is that folks are used to one game and see this (or Jody's 3-gun example) and say, "Great, I'll shoot that!" Then they show up and the rules are different and they don't like it. Of course the rules are different. That's why it's a different game.

[Chris Rhines]

Ehhhh... Although I'm not too horribly torn up that I can't shoot my G34 in this game, I don't know that the barrel length restriction makes sense. While barrel length may have a small effect on overall concealability, overall length and height are much more important. The G34 is actually an excellent demonstration of that - a stock G34 and a stock 5" 1911a1 are almost the same in length and height.

I would submit that the max 5" barrel length rule can be jettisoned as an unnecessary overlap with the box rule (I.A.2.), and the concealment test rule (I.D.1.).

Now if the issue is that the G34/5 are specifically marketed as game guns, that's fine. I'd still lose the barrel length restriction, and ban any pistol marketed as a competition gun by name (off the top of my head, that would include the G34/5, the S&W M&P Pro, the Springfield XD(M) series, the Para P16.40 Limited, and pretty much the entire STI/SVI product line...) I'm not saying that such a move would be a great idea, but it would make more sense than an arbitrary barrel length cutoff.

...

If I were to buy a G19 solely for the purposes of shooting KSTG, isn't that like, reverse gaming? ;)

-C

[JodyH]

Make the box 8.25" x 5.75", that way you could piss off the 1911 shooters as well as the 34 shooters.

[orionz06]

Make the box 8.25" x 5.75", that way you could piss off the 1911 shooters as well as the 34 shooters.

I knew I liked you for a reason.

[ToddG]

My AAR after running the first match:


Accuracy penalty is brutal compared to other sports. Having said that, switching to half a second per point would have changed the results very little in terms of who beat whom. Only one person would have pushed into the top 25% of scores, and only one would have avoided being in the bottom 25%. One thing I did notice is that quite few folks took make-up shots to guarantee they got good hits. This is exactly what we wanted to see.
Procedural penalties are brutal compared to other sports. Folks who didn't pay attention and earned procedurals were bit hard. Most of these were either related to cover or failure to move during mandated SOM courses of fire. Most of the penalties fell to folks with little or no prior competition experience. My belief, for the time being, is that as people become familiar with the rules and familiar with following instructions during a match the incidence of procedurals will drop. The penalty was purposely set high because we wanted breaking the rules to matter, not be something folks gamed or were willing to risk.
Non-threat penalties are actually still pretty light unless you score an A-zone, which we only had happen with one shooter who deliberately shot the target in the face (twice) not realizing it was a non-threat. This reflects our philosophy that hitting one due to a tough shot shouldn't penalize the shooter as much as a target ID failure, especially when the non-threat target ID is a giant reflective red X. Having said that, I'm wondering if the non-A-zone NT penalty should go up from 5s to 10s.
Failure to neutralize penalty really kicked a lot of people's butts on the stage with the swingers. Again, I think this is in part because people were not adequately familiar with the rules. Even though we pointed out at the beginning of the match the need to score at least one "A" to avoid the additional 5s penalty, we had quite a few folks who were satisfied by two Charlies on the swinger... two seconds of penalties for the accuracy was a small price but the addition five for the FTN hurt.
SLG and I spoke for about an hour last night after the match regarding the cover rule. We're still bouncing some ideas around but one of the major changes we're discussing is adding a "FAULT!" warning if someone isn't using cover as proscribed, then giving them a chance to fix it before accruing a penalty. The downside to that is some competitors purposely take advantage and break their required shots fast enough to be finished before they could be expected to respond to the warning.
Also related to cover, we had some ROs make changes to the fault lines during the match that were intended to make things clearer for the shooters but in some cases actually coaxed them into foot faults. We'll need to have more specific rules about fault lines and make sure that anyone setting the fault lines does so properly.
We had two complicated time-consuming stages plus the Classifier (which has three starts and requires specific ammo management). Thanks to some early arrivals we were able to keep the squads on time right up until the end, when we were about 15min late. Lesson for the future is to have one "signature" stage each match and keep the others quicker and more simple. Our belief is that folks would rather shoot sixty rounds in five simple stages than thirty rounds in three complicated ones. This also works out conveniently because unlike yesterday when we had six hours to get the match set up, in future months we're likely to have only two hours or so.

[Lon]

Todd,

Just read your blog on the match and was curious about something. Which techniques worked for people and which sucked? Did the shooters (or you) attribute the suckage to lack of practice of proper technique or just not knowing/never been taught a good flashlight technique?

[ToddG]

I'd like to keep this thread focused as much as possible on KSTG and its rules. If you want to start another thread about related issues, techniques, etc. that would be great.

[JAD]

I honestly didn't throw up my hands at IDPA -- I stopped playing for life reasons and not any of the (many, many) issues I had with the game. That said I haven't shot a national level match since 2000 and haven't shot a club match since '05, so this is way peanut gallery.

Getting people to shoot a bit more as if their life, rather than their standing, depends on it takes many of the elements you've talked about -- stick to your guns on accuracy, procedure, and most particularly cover. Do not warn on cover; life's cover warning comes with a bullet. Keep it your guys' game and your guys' rules and do not bend. Keep stages very small, very low on trickery and bullshit, and relatively low on round count. Two swingers were too many. Add a charger, they're worth the PITA and can be reasonably trouble free if done well. Make it a goal to have very few targets that are shot twice. Consider some McCaigs. Consider upping the no-shoot penalty. I've never agreed with those that feel that it should be a DNF or DQ -- you still survived -- but I get where they're coming from. Don't let people engage and reengage from the same position -- not sure if that came up on the swinger stage.

These are all kibbutzy bits that you MUST disregard if you don't agree -- people like me who push you to be more "tactical" may be viewed with the same suspicion as the gamers who want to make it more 'fair.'

Your pursuit is vain, futile, and will end up significantly lowering your opinion of humanity. I wish I lived out the so I could watch it first-hand, and help out if possible. Have fun with it!

[JodyH]

I set up the majority of our clubs ccw matches.
I usually have 5 stages.
One down and dirty fast stage with around 6 shots required.
Three stages of 10-14 rounds.
One big stage with 18 rounds.
Match round count is usually 65-75 but most people shoot close to 100.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[cclaxton]

My AAR after running the first match:


Procedural penalties are brutal compared to other sports. Folks who didn't pay attention and earned procedurals were bit hard. Most of these were either related to cover or failure to move during mandated SOM courses of fire. Most of the penalties fell to folks with little or no prior competition experience. My belief, for the time being, is that as people become familiar with the rules and familiar with following instructions during a match the incidence of procedurals will drop. The penalty was purposely set high because we wanted breaking the rules to matter, not be something folks gamed or were willing to risk.
We had two complicated time-consuming stages plus the Classifier (which has three starts and requires specific ammo management). Thanks to some early arrivals we were able to keep the squads on time right up until the end, when we were about 15min late. Lesson for the future is to have one "signature" stage each match and keep the others quicker and more simple. Our belief is that folks would rather shoot sixty rounds in five simple stages than thirty rounds in three complicated ones. This also works out conveniently because unlike yesterday when we had six hours to get the match set up, in future months we're likely to have only two hours or so.

Todd,
Is there a document showing the details of how each of us was scored in the match? I didn't get a chance to see how my penalties were calculated and my times for each stage and classifier. Excel would be perfect.
Thanks,

[cclaxton]

My AAR after running the first match:


Accuracy penalty is brutal compared to other sports.
Procedural penalties are brutal compared to other sports.
Non-threat penalties are actually still pretty light unless you score an A-zone
Failure to neutralize penalty really kicked a lot of people's butts on the stage with the swingers.
SLG and I spoke for about an hour last night after the match regarding the cover rule.
Also related to cover, we had some ROs make changes to the fault lines during the match
We had two complicated time-consuming stages plus the Classifier (which has three starts and requires specific ammo management).

Todd,
1) I don't have an issue with the scoring...I think it is about right.
2) Procedurals seem about right as well.
3) The first swinger in front of the non-threats was a VERY DIFFICULT target to shoot, especially if you need to hit the head box. I would have designed that target to be a bit easier to hit.
4) I would hold hard on the cover rule...a FAULT warning is silly...the rule is the rule. (That being said, I still think you restrict COF design by having only one piece of tape on the floor...I think you need to work on that issue.)
5) Since the white head box is new, I recommend COF emphasizing more head shots and more targets with head shots only to get everyone better at hitting them. I wold put up ten targets representing ten gang members coming at you, staggerred 1-2 feet apart and two head shots per.
6) That is also a good case for tactical sequence....maybe you should reconsider the KSTG rule to allow COF that specifies tactical sequence?

I found the match good in that it showed me where I need to improve. Had fun.
Thanks,
CC

[JAD]

I set up the majority of our clubs ccw matches.
I usually have 5 stages.
One down and dirty fast stage with around 6 shots required.
Three stages of 10-14 rounds.
One big stage with 18 rounds.
Match round count is usually 65-75 but most people shoot close to 100.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
-- Jody, on your high round count stages, are they usually scenario or standard in design?

[JodyH]

-- Jody, on your high round count stages, are they usually scenario or standard in design?
I try to make every stage somewhat scenario based.
I tell people not to always look at it as 9 different targets, but maybe as 2 or 3 targets that keep moving to different locations and just refuse to give up despite being shot.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[ToddG]

Todd,
Is there a document showing the details of how each of us was scored in the match? I didn't get a chance to see how my penalties were calculated and my times for each stage and classifier. Excel would be perfect.

I did it in Apple Numbers. I can export to Excel but make no promises that the calculations and layout will remain workable.



3) The first swinger in front of the non-threats was a VERY DIFFICULT target to shoot, especially if you need to hit the head box. I would have designed that target to be a bit easier to hit.

It was supposed to be hard. The problem is that many folks tried to make head shots while it was moving fast. They could have just made body shots when it swung wide to the left. Or they could have waited for it to stop moving (didn't take too long) and made more or less static head shots.

Part of the task involved in putting together a match is to have stuff that challenges both new shooters and experienced guys. The swinger stage was, without doubt, the hardest stage for me to shoot well.


4) I would hold hard on the cover rule...a FAULT warning is silly...the rule is the rule. (That being said, I still think you restrict COF design by having only one piece of tape on the floor...I think you need to work on that issue.)

SLG and I were just talking about this and I find it very interesting that folks are coming out against a FAULT! warning. We definitely want to hear more opinions on it.


5) Since the white head box is new, I recommend COF emphasizing more head shots and more targets with head shots only to get everyone better at hitting them. I wold put up ten targets representing ten gang members coming at you, staggerred 1-2 feet apart and two head shots per.

You shot at a total of thirteen paper targets Tuesday night. Six of them required a head shot and one of them -- the swinger we discussed above -- was set up to make the head shot a necessity once it stopped moving.

[quote]6) That is also a good case for tactical sequence....maybe you should reconsider the KSTG rule to allow COF that specifies tactical sequence?[quote]

That's absolutely not going to happen and is one of the first decisions we made when writing the first draft of the rules. We are not letting KSTG turn into "ballet with guns." We're not dictating how people solve the problem.

[Mr_White]

Todd,

Looks like the match was awesome. Wish I could have made it, but I'm pretty far away.

I have a comment about the G34 issue, and I mean all this very respectfully.

It sounds like you want to avoid an equipment race. I think I read that in one of the KSTG-related threads here.

I agree that lasers are a significant aid to shooting well.

Doesn't allowing lasers, which can make a significant difference in a person's objectively measured performance, precisely create an equipment race?

Just as you accurately say, 'most people I know do not carry a G34, even though there are people who do,' I would say 'most people I know do not carry a gun with a laser, even though there are people who do.'

I think a gun with a laser vs a gun without a laser is a whole lot bigger difference than a G34 vs. a G17.

If you allow the equipment race created by allowing lasers, why not allow the much smaller (I would think) equipment race that might result from allowing G34s?

I know you have made your decisions about how you run your game, including lasers and G34s and everything else. I just noted what I perceive as an 'equipment race incongruity' in the issues of laser vs. no laser, and G34 vs. no G34 and wanted to float it for your consideration.

If I lived close enough to afford to participate, despite the fact that I do actually carry a G34 every moment I carry a gun, I would have happily come to play, and used the same exact setup, but with a G17. The G34 being disallowed would not have prevented me from participating, though I would prefer to be able to use it.

[ToddG]

Ori -- Thanks. You're right, the laser does create a competitive advantage under certain circumstances. I see a distinction on a number of levels:

They're not allowed in IDPA and IPSC, so this is a distinction for KSTG for folks who have a laser-equipped gun and want to compete. The G34 users already have two games -- IDPA and IPSC -- where they'll fit into the crowd invisibly if they shoot a G34.
The laser is only going to be an advantage under specific circumstances that are uncommon at the club level. There is no perceived benefit to a laser if you cannot see the dot during an outdoor match.
The majority of popular guns used in the competition can be fitted with a laser aiming device. Shooters do not have to choose one specific brand and model to gain the perceived benefit.
The laser is not generally seen as impacting the ease of concealed carry in the same way a very-long-barreled gun is.


There will always be an equipment race, it's a game and some equipment is better than others. But we'd rather have the top level of gaminess encompass multiple different guns (5" 1911s, M&P Pro and L, G17, HK P30L, etc.) than allow the limit to be stretched just far enough where only one gun from one manufacturer provides the (perceived) benefit wanted.

[Mr_White]

Ori -- Thanks. You're right, the laser does create a competitive advantage under certain circumstances. I see a distinction on a number of levels:

They're not allowed in IDPA and IPSC, so this is a distinction for KSTG for folks who have a laser-equipped gun and want to compete. The G34 users already have two games -- IDPA and IPSC -- where they'll fit into the crowd invisibly if they shoot a G34.
The laser is only going to be an advantage under specific circumstances that are uncommon at the club level. There is no perceived benefit to a laser if you cannot see the dot during an outdoor match.
The majority of popular guns used in the competition can be fitted with a laser aiming device. Shooters do not have to choose one specific brand and model to gain the perceived benefit.
The laser is not generally seen as impacting the ease of concealed carry in the same way a very-long-barreled gun is.


There will always be an equipment race, it's a game and some equipment is better than others. But we'd rather have the top level of gaminess encompass multiple different guns (5" 1911s, M&P Pro and L, G17, HK P30L, etc.) than allow the limit to be stretched just far enough where only one gun from one manufacturer provides the (perceived) benefit wanted.

That's fair enough.

I have been on this 'become absolutely masterful with iron sights' journey for the last few years, otherwise I might use a laser now. I've been awestruck a number of times at how a skilled person becomes a turbocharged skilled person when using a good laser-equipped pistol. Just as I was when watching the videos of your runs on the KSTG match stages. Wow, awesome shooting! Do you have any sense, any estimate, of how much better you think you did with the laser than you would have done without it? I realize that's very imprecise and subjective - I am just looking for your sense of it.

I ask because I have seen a number of videos of you shooting with iron sights, and looked at the numbers you've posted over time. I felt like I had a basic sense of how well you shoot. But when I watched the match video, I just said, "dayim, wow, holy crap Todd's shooting is fucking stout." Like more than I normally would say that. :cool:

[ToddG]

Thanks! Again, discussions about stuff other than KSTG rules should go in another thread, though.

[abu fitna]

I greatly enjoyed the match. I am not normally one of the folks who comes out to competitive matches, but the "shoot as you carry" concept behind these rules appealed to me. I must say I did not do as well as I might have hoped, but that was the shooter, not the game.

I definitely dressed a little more "daily" than a lot of the vest wearing folks, with a relatively deep IWB. Used a very tight retention to comply with the test. Running a single stack subcompact 9mm with stub concealment magazines apparently didn't help on the higher round count stages, nor did pocket carry for spare mags (figured the extra mags could be justified as a "stepping out of the truck" option, but that's a tougher argument if I had run a four pack mag carrier). But at least I wasn't trying to be the guy with the speed strips.... who has my respect, for his dedication. Ran 124gr NATO ammo to ensure I met power floor for minor, as I wasn't sure where the typical WWB fodder would chrono or with what consistency. Turned out not to be a big deal. Ran the low light stage sans light, and remembered why low flash ammo is a good thing to have around.

Overall, happy to stack up cold against the better shooters, whether in skill or equipment. I can see a place for a scoring calculation for "deep cover" type factors as was discussed, but I can also see that distorting the real world combat transferability of lessons learned. At the end of the day, folks that carry smaller and less gear need to be evaluated on actual fighting performance, not given false impressions by a handicapped score.

Took a procedural for a too long pause in the retreat stage, but no argument - realized it as I was standing there. Fairly lost, and certain not a bad rule by any means. Encourages one to un-ass the X much more decisively.

I want to thank Todd for a clean, crisp range. No quibbles there, and liked the format. Transition between admin time and on the line was somewhat less formal, and a bit challenging with multiple ROs offering differing instructions (especially for shooters on deck versus on the line, but nothing that a bit of clear communication between shooter and "refs" couldn't clear up. Lesson learned for me there.

Looking forward to January. Will be focused on that FAST drill, as it was the only "memory" (mostly due to the recommended mag setup, which I botched). But my real focus area will be those head shots - dropped a lot there; and cleaner mag changes with the stub mags (which hung more than usual, as luck would have it).

[JV_]

SLG and I were just talking about this and I find it very interesting that folks are coming out against a FAULT! warning. We definitely want to hear more opinions on it.I don't think I care either way. Gun games have rules, I'll play by the rules, I just need to be more a lot more careful.

I'm used to pulling the trigger and worrying about hits and time; I have to worry about other things like fault lines, FTNs, and when a hit is good enough to move on.

[Chris Rhines]

Fault warnings - I'm actually against them, even though one would have saved me 5 seconds on Tuesday.

Having the RO converse with the shooter can lead to a lot of problems, from arguments and demands for reshoots ("...the RO distracted me by yelling in my ear..."), to real safety issues (the shooter turns towards the RO to see what he's yelling about, and inadvertantly sweeps him...)

In my opinion, the only verbal command that the RO gives on the clock, should be, "STOP!"

I would like to see raised fault lines, though. As a compromise against trip hazards, maybe use raised fault lines when the shooter is moving forward or sideways, and tape or charge lines when the shooter is retreating?

-C

[GJM]

1) I think it is great that a laser is allowed, because there is so little hard data on the performance of a laser, and this is is an opportunity to evaluate this technology in terms of of a score reflecting speed and accuracy.

2) I just measured my G17/RMR, and it fits in the box (minus magazine). Want to confirm that this combination is allowed, subject to the box rule, and believe that it is a good thing for the same reason as the laser -- the ability to gather data on its effectiveness.

[JSGlock34]

As one of the guys who got hit with two cover penalties on Stage Three (aka "Those Damn Swingers!") I'd initially say the rule is just fine as it is, but perhaps we need to see it applied across more scenarios before making the final call.

During the walkthrough, Todd explained the presence of the fault line, the penalty for extending the muzzle past the barricade, and the fact that those two penalties stack. I was listening and took a mental note...

Unfortunately, the reptilian part of my brain that seized command when the buzzer went off isn't good at multitasking - at best the lizard at the helm can remember one or two tasks. So instead of remembering my footwork and proper use of cover, my thoughts were something like - "Hey, a frickin' moving target! Far out! You haven't seen one of these in, like, two years? Do you even remember how to shoot one?" Lizard brain also remembered not to shoot the target with the big red X - and he is to be commended for such presence of mind. But the fault line and reminder not to crowd cover fell right out of his rather limited RAM buffer at that point.

Thankfully the penalties were per target and not per shot, as I believe I launched 6 or 7 rounds trying to hit the head on that damned swinger...

I'm not sure yelling 'Fault!' would have changed anything on Tuesday night - there was only one target to engage and I probably would have fired before any warning registered. However, if there were, say, four threat targets on that side of the barricade, I might be singing a different tune about the 'Fault!' warning, as the penalties would add up very quickly and the warning would give a shooter a chance to correct before inflicting seriously damaging penalties. Perhaps the penalties should be per fault line vice per target? Maybe a stiffer penalty (10 seconds?) but one that doesn't continue to stack as you compound your error?

In any case, I learned a valuable lesson (improper use of cover is more likely to negatively impact your score in KSTG than in IDPA), and next time I'll (try) to pay more attention to the lines on the ground.

[ToddG]

At the end of the day, folks that carry smaller and less gear need to be evaluated on actual fighting performance, not given false impressions by a handicapped score.

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.


Looking forward to January. Will be focused on that FAST drill

Just as an FYI, we probably won't be shooting the FAST in January's match. We'll try to do it every three months.


I would like to see raised fault lines, though. As a compromise against trip hazards, maybe use raised fault lines when the shooter is moving forward or sideways, and tape or charge lines when the shooter is retreating?

That's fair, and I don't think the rules dictate one way or the other. Physical fault lines help the gamer who doesn't want to think about cover. The question is whether we want to encourage that further than we already do.


2) I just measured my G17/RMR, and it fits in the box (minus magazine). Want to confirm that this combination is allowed, subject to the box rule, and believe that it is a good thing for the same reason as the laser -- the ability to gather data on its effectiveness.

If the gun fits in the box and doesn't violate any rules, it's legal. RMRs are definitely legal so long as the gun still fits.

[jar]

That's fair, and I don't think the rules dictate one way or the other. Physical fault lines help the gamer who doesn't want to think about cover. The question is whether we want to encourage that further than we already do.


On the other side though, you don't want to encourage people to look at their feet when shooting around cover either. The best compromise is probably non-tactile fault lines that give a little bit of leeway so the shooter only busts them if they really fail to use cover. I wasn't there, so that may be what you did.

I could go either way on the fault warnings. You mentioned earlier about what to do if the shooter commits the fault before the RO can get the warning out. This is one thing that I think the IDPA rules actually get right. If the shooter commits a procedural before the warning can be issued, too bad, so sad.

[LOKNLOD]

Clearly the answer is creating cover faults using SICK (http://www.sick.com)-type light curtains that activate a buzzer/lights. :cool:

[ToddG]

I wasn't there, so that may be what you did.

That's what we tried to do. On the low-light stage it worked... the only people who broke the line were way too far out. When I put the tape down for that corner I almost tore it up and redid it because it was so generous.

On the other stage (with the swingers) the line was simply too short in the beginning. As we saw more people staying back from the wall -- which was good! -- it became obvious the line needed to go farther back. One of the ROs just extended them straight back instead of taking the angles into account. So guys who were farther back actually had a much harder time simultaneously using cover and getting line of sight on the targets. It was certainly possible but not from a position you'd take if you were actually trying to shoot at reactive speed.


This is one thing that I think the IDPA rules actually get right. If the shooter commits a procedural before the warning can be issued, too bad, so sad.

I understand that in theory, but what I've seen repeatedly is the warning is given and the shots are fired more or less simultaneously and then the RO gives the shooter the benefit of the doubt. The RO feels like he took too long to give the warning and doesn't ding the shooter. This is exacerbated by the subjective nature of the IDPA cover rule which takes the RO (SO... I know) some time to assess before deciding whether a violation has been made. Given a shooter moving dynamically, the shooter can be at and through a point of cover faster than the RO can make that assessment. It's particularly bad in "shoot house" stages, where the guy who can get away with using the least cover without a penalty is almost always the winner.

[jar]

I understand that in theory, but what I've seen repeatedly is the warning is given and the shots are fired more or less simultaneously and then the RO gives the shooter the benefit of the doubt. The RO feels like he took too long to give the warning and doesn't ding the shooter. This is exacerbated by the subjective nature of the IDPA cover rule which takes the RO (SO... I know) some time to assess before deciding whether a violation has been made. Given a shooter moving dynamically, the shooter can be at and through a point of cover faster than the RO can make that assessment. It's particularly bad in "shoot house" stages, where the guy who can get away with using the least cover without a penalty is almost always the winner.

Good point. I see a lot of loose officiating in IDPA and have been guilty of it myself. The subjectivity of the rules is the primary factor for me personally. I've given 6 procedurals (one per shot) for a foot fault in USPSA without a second thought because there's nothing to argue about. I know I've let people get away with cover violations in IDPA because I didn't want to argue about it. It's especially tough in club matches with embedded SOs because consistency is really hard.

For me personally, earlier in my shooting career, a cover warning was worse than just getting the penalty because it would trash my (lack of) mental game.

[cclaxton]

I did it in Apple Numbers. I can export to Excel but make no promises that the calculations and layout will remain workable.
OK, I will take whatever you have. Let me know where you post it or send PM. Thanks.


ME: That is also a good case for tactical sequence....maybe you should reconsider the KSTG rule to allow COF that specifies tactical sequence?
TODD: That's absolutely not going to happen and is one of the first decisions we made when writing the first draft of the rules. We are not letting KSTG turn into "ballet with guns." We're not dictating how people solve the problem.
ok, fair enough, I get it..... But it does create a dilemma of deciding to shoot fast for the game instead of smart (and practicing shooting smart.) That has been my complaint with all shooting sports, but I know speed is important as well.

Hope you're taking the Glock 34 argument and the COMPACT Division seriously. Think of all the people who own compact CCW handguns who feel outclassed by people with 8" fullsized handguns. I was just at the gun store and two women were shopping for a handgun and when they told him for Concealed Carry, he directed them to small 9mm handguns and emphasized the size and weight of a subcompact or compact. Most people aren't buying full-sized handguns for concealed carry. But for serious competitors, we like 'em big. Why not make a division for the smaller guns?

CC

[ToddG]

Results can be downloaded in Apple Numbers here:
http://pistol-forum.com/kstg/MatchResults111228.numbers

We are not going to have different divisions. That is not going to change.

[cmoore]

I'm curious why you include both an energy and a momentum power floor. Below is a comparison of standard weight 9mm bullets and their associated minimum velocity to meet the 300 energy floor. Also included are their respective power factors. The 147 grain bullet pays a hefty price in power factor relative to the lighter weight bullets to meet the energy floor. Why the discrimination against heavy 9mm bullets?


Velocity, Weight, ME, PF
959, 147, 300, 141.0
1044, 124, 300, 129.5
1087, 115, 300, 125.0

[ToddG]

You'll have to read back through the thread for all the power factor discussion. Having said that, the 300 ft-lb limit more accurately reflects a lot of defensive ammunition on the market (our #1 goal) and in a game where all calibers compete head to head it prevents people from downloading .40 or .45 to ridiculously low levels.

[JV_]

Results can be downloaded in Apple Numbers here:

For those that can't natively view Apple Numbers documents, Zamzar has a free conversion:
http://www.zamzar.com/

[cmoore]

... in a game where all calibers compete head to head it prevents people from downloading .40 or .45 to ridiculously low levels.

Thanks. This is a good answer.

[jlw]

Results can be downloaded in Apple Numbers here:
http://pistol-forum.com/kstg/MatchResults111228.numbers

We are not going to have different divisions. That is not going to change.


For those that can't natively view Apple Numbers documents, Zamzar has a free conversion:
http://www.zamzar.com/

Or, they could get Macs and free themselves from the PC blues.

[kle]

Hope you're taking the Glock 34 argument and the COMPACT Division seriously. Think of all the people who own compact CCW handguns who feel outclassed by people with 8" fullsized handguns.

I've seen how Todd and other competitors shoot outside of this competition, and knew that I'd be outclassed regardless of my equipment. I shot the match anyways - not to compete, but to test my equipment and to learn what works (and doesn't) and what skills I need to improve. Self evaluation.


Results can be downloaded in Apple Numbers here:
http://pistol-forum.com/kstg/MatchResults111228.numbers

Thanks for uploading it (and thanks to JV for linking to the conversion service); it's good to see my scores and times, and to confirm that I had the procedural violation on the 2nd stage (I knew it when I fired while my feet stopped moving before I crossed the line). I'm also happy to see my times improved for the FAST drill at the end =)

I'm a little late to the party, but I'm also against audible or visible warnings of procedural violations, though I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. Perhaps because in the 'real world' we wouldn't get warnings, or maybe because it depends on the referee giving the warning in an appropriate manner (did he make the warning loud enough? soon enough? did he make the right call at all?). If there was video evidence and instant replay, maybe I'd be for it.

[Lon]

I shot the match anyways - not to compete, but to test my equipment and to learn what works (and doesn't) and what skills I need to improve. Self evaluation.


THIS.

One of the best posts in this thread.

[tremiles]

Or, they could get Macs and free themselves from the PC blues.

While we realize that a small number of folks use Mac as their EDC, the goal of the KSCG is to promote the use of EDC gear that the vast majority of computer users compute with. Otherwise everyone would run out and get Mac. Gamers are gonna game afterall.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

[jaywade]

when's the next one?

[Little Creek]

Rule changes codified in the Dec'11 draft:

no moon clip revolvers
must have both feet on the ground when shooting around the side of vertical cover
SERPA and similar holsters banned
base "Master" Classifier score changed from 5.00 to 6.00, with all other times adjusted appropriately


I guess weapon lights and lasers are okay then. The KSTG is not different than the other games. It is your game so you make the rules. I carried a M19 2.5" or M19 4" concealed from 1976 until 1992. That was before moon clips. I carried speed loaders. IMHO moon clips are much better than speed loaders. Which pole provided your data on who carries what? It has been my experience that many who claim to carry "all the time" usually leave their handgun at home or in the car.

[jlw]

While we realize that a small number of folks use Mac as their EDC, the goal of the KSCG is to promote the use of EDC gear that the vast majority of computer users compute with. Otherwise everyone would run out and get Mac. Gamers are gonna game afterall.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

Bravo.

[Arclight]

On the match:
This was a great match and we all really appreciated the effort everyone put in to make it happen. For some of us, matches are training -- you see when the wheels come off under low level simulated stress or circumstances you can't replicate in the booth on a Saturday morning. Very glad to have that opportunity back and doubly-so when it's a game focused on having people use what they really carry. What a great way to refine your carry gear and make sure it all works as you expect it to! Also, while I realize it isn't necessarily part of the match, I appreciated the constructive feedback when things went wrong. Sometimes it's hard to tell mid-match why it went sideways, so getting the "next time, put your elbow down" and similar advice is very welcome.

On Fault warnings:
I'd say, no. It's artificial and, as you noted, allows real gamers to game it. You can either use cover properly or you can't (and as we saw, some skilled shooters screw it up sometimes -- it happens). Raised lines would be helpful and a reasonable compromise, but I have no objection to the current state of affairs even though I'll likely violate it inadvertently soon enough.

On the Glock 34:
I have a Glock 34. I got it shortly before I started shooting IDPA and used it for a couple of matches before I realized that the G19, being what I actually carry, is what I should be using for the spirit of the game. Did it make me less competitive? Probably, but I got a lot more learning value out of each match. Sorry to anyone who sleeps with their G34 (or legitimately EDCs it), but I'm very happy with the current KSTG rules and their emphasis on trying to simulate reasonably real circumstances.

[AznDragon533]

Did anyone compete KSTG with a full size 1911? and how did you do?

im about to use this...

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1240/5177094923_f58202b471_z.jpg

[JV_]

Did anyone compete KSTG with a full size 1911?Yes, I saw at least 1.


how did you do?They weren't in the top 5, or even top 10. But, I wouldn't use that person's performance to indicate how successful or not that platform is in KSTG.

[ToddG]

There were a handful.

Note that you cannot have the light mounted to the gun while the gun is in the holster, per the rules.

[AznDragon533]

There were a handful.

Note that you cannot have the light mounted to the gun while the gun is in the holster, per the rules.

But I can have it mounted in other stages like if the gun was on a table?

also can I wear a pov camera ? What model/brand did you have?

[JV_]

But I can have it mounted in other stages like if the gun was on a table?Yes.

http://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=365&d=1324962612
Page #4 of the Rules (#5 in the PDF)

7. Flashlights: Some stages may require the use of a flashlight, and it is the
shooter’s responsibility to have a suitable light at every match. Mounted lights
that attach to the pistol may only be used on stages in which the pistol begins out
of the holster. This can include but is not limited to: starting in the competitor’s
hands, lying on a table, or in a box or drawer. Pistols must be unloaded and
shown clear before attaching or detaching a light. For stages that begin with the
pistol in the holster, only handheld lights may be used.

[ToddG]

also can I wear a pov camera ? What model/brand did you have?

Jay already answered the light question but yes, you can wear a POV camera. We simply ask that you keep it OFF until you're facing downrange ready to shoot your stages. There is no videotaping of anyone else on the range without their express permission.

Mine is a ContourROAM, purchased on the recommendation of caleb (http://gunnuts.net/2011/12/12/christmas-shopping-trinket-free/).

[jetfire]

Mine is a ContourROAM, purchased on the recommendation of caleb (http://gunnuts.net/2011/12/12/christmas-shopping-trinket-free/).

Technically, Shelley wrote that. But I do have and use a contourROAM for all my POV shooting, and it takes excellent video. It's also quite rugged, as the case of mine has scratches from where it's been dropped repeatedly.

[LittleLebowski]

ToddG,

I am going to try and get all my carry guns setup for just the XS Big Dot front sight to eliminate future confusion.


I'd strongly recommend the Warren 2 dots, the Heinie 2 dots, or the Ameriglo two dots over the Big Dots. See where I'm going with this?

[BN]

I'd strongly recommend the Warren 2 dots, the Heinie 2 dots, or the Ameriglo two dots over the Big Dots. See where I'm going with this?

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