KSTG

[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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

[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