KSTG

[abu fitna]

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

[ChrisG]

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

[ToddG]

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

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

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

[ChrisG]

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

[ToddG]

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

[PPGMD]

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

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

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

[Chris Rhines]

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

Heh. Maryland State IDPA Championships, 2007. I was 'corrected' by the RO on the first stage for crouching too much. That experience probably had something to do with my 5+ year layoff from IDPA.

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

-C

[ChrisG]

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

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

[ToddG]

There are two approaches you could take:

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

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

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

[ChrisG]

There are two approaches you could take:

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

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

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

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