KSTG

[ToddG]

RESULTS OF THE 27-December MATCH AT THE NRA CAN BE FOUND BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK

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:kstg-11Dec.pdf

[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:

1. 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,
2. 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.

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.