After I posted that, I thought about it some more and feel like I remember the reason he cited for disallowing the G34 (even though same size 1911s were allowed) was that it would create an equipment race - Joe CCW/training guy who carries a G19 would go to KSTG, see someone do better with a G34, and feel like you 'had to have one' to win, even if the actual difference was marginal. At least that's what I think I remember. Sound right to you? I don't remember anything about the IDPA box myself.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
I actually pulled that from the main KSTG thread here. I didn't capture all of the back and forth, that was the first mention and the strongest argument against the gun made.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think for yourself. Question authority.
I've been mulling this over for the last couple of days. Mr. White brings up a good point. Todd and I thought that stuff over very carefully when coming up with the KSTG rules. Less specific thought went into the FAST, for a few reasons I won't go into. You can never really make a shooting test completely fair, unless everyone is using exactly the same stuff. This was never the intent of the FAST. I still think that the open gun is too much of an advantage in a square range setting to make the FAST times meaningful in anyway. However, it is not my circus, not my monkeys. Which I'm pretty sure I made clear before. Ernest can and should do with the FAST as he wishes. I will always view coins 0-14 like IPSC until 1981, but times change and so does the FAST.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on exactly what happened here, but there is really no reason for me to make a big deal of it. So, I apologize for making this an issue.
Was thinking about doing something outside of the box along the lines of a "modified" Roland so I was going over this thread. Caught the last couple of pages and admittedly I don't know a lot about competition rules etc...I had to google "KTSG shooting" just to figure out what was being discussed.
But getting more to my question, when googling "Roland Special Glock" I saw a video as a search result. I thought great, I wanted to see the weapon actually shooting. So I watch the video and then I take a look at another of the persons video and he has a FAST test recorded, for a coin. So I watch. My specific question is in regards to scoring hits.
I have always been under the assumption that a "hit" in competition is if at the minimum the "grease ring" of the projectile breaks the scoring ring. Not where the "fracturing" of the paper creases the line. I know this may be nitpicking, I generally adhere to the at least half of the projectile breaking the line, or more common for me would be that the "grease ring" must be entirely inside the scoring zone without breaking the inside line to be scored. Projectile completely inside scoring zone. Or if you "need to ask" if it is a hit, consider it to be a miss.
Again this may be nitpicking but I was just curious what is common. In the below picture, I would not even hesitate to score that as a miss, but it was a hit. Is this commonly accepted as a hit in competition or in certain organizations? Not a big deal just struck me as a curiosity. If so, my fastest FAST test is even faster.
Last edited by Surf; 11-17-2016 at 01:43 PM.
Surf, I saw that in the video as well and certainly wondered about it.
I don't question Ernie's experience or ability to determine hits vs misses, but that hit is definitely tough to look at!
I understand many people want to emphasize tighter accuracy by using the customs you mention - bullethole has to be completely in without touching the line, or if you have to look very close then it's out. I think the best way to adhere to tighter accuracy standards are to just use a smaller scoring zone. I personally like going with the accepted scoring convention from USPSA. If the grease ring touches the line at all, it is a hit. Overlays determine most precisely and consistently whether the grease ring has touched the line. An issue with requiring a shot to be COMPLETELY within the scoring area without touching the line is that it's biased against larger calibers. That inverts what I think should be the custom - a larger caliber should be a little more likely to touch the line and score and thus effectively has a tiny bit larger scoring zone.
The shot you point out on the video caught my eye too, but I have seen a lot of shots in and out of competition that with my naked eye, I'd have called a miss, but once the overlay was used, it clearly touched the line. I believe that in USPSA, this is thought to be more consistent because different bullet shapes create slightly different sized holes, even if the same caliber. I'm not much of a rules guy in USPSA, but that's what I understand. And that's not a universal custom either - I think IDPA says that if you have to look that closely (like when you would get out an overlay if it were USPSA, or get your face six inches from the target) then it scores in favor of the shooter.
Here's another example of the same kind of thing - I shot this FAST yesterday. One of the 3x5 shots, barely clipped the 3x5, and I realize that there are plenty of people who would have called it a miss. It was a hit, though minimally so. This one doesn't count for anything, so it doesn't really matter anyway. It could have been better with a little more accuracy and better reload, but for a cold run I'll take it for sure.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
I think this can be an interesting discussion. SLG is convinced that the red dot is a real advantage. My belief, is that the red dot helps some people, hurts others, and makes no difference to others. For this interested, here is a link to the combined results of the 2016 USPSA Production and Carry Optics Nationals. My understanding is that they were identical courses of fire.
https://practiscore.com/results/new/24773
Since many of the shooters competed in both, you can compare their Production and Carry Optics performance on the same courses of fire, with the caveat that the CO came second, so the competitors presumably had more familiarity from having shot the stage earlier in the Production Nationals. The men's and women's champions, Max Michel and Julie Golob, both did quite a bit better in CO, with Max shooting about a 10 percent higher score and Julie shooting about a 5 percent higher score. However, that was not universal. For example, Nils Jonasson shot 95.92 percent in Production and 94.6 percent in CO. Robbie Leatham shot 91.96 percent in CO and 89.86 in Production. Matt Mink shot 92.55 in Production and 86.39 in CO.
These results were on USPSA stages, which very much underweight the draw compared to the FAST, but have a lot more shooting than the FAST, and a lot more demanding shooting (partials, swingers, etc.) To determine whether the red dot is an advantage with the FAST, I think you would have run a bunch of various shooters, of different skill levels, through the FAST, using otherwise identical iron sight and red dot equipped pistols, and look hard at the numbers to see what the red dot effect is, if at all.
Then, after you crunched the numbers, it would be time for a philosophical question -- if something is an advantage, should you be able to take advantage of it. That could then be extended to a bunch of other things, like:
1) a more retentive leather holster vs a faster kydex holster
2) 9 vs .40/45
3) a heavier, longer trigger vs a shorter/lighter trigger
4) fiber optic vs tritium sights
5) appendix vs strong side carry
6) reloads vs maximum power factor carry ammo
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.