[Flexmoney]

http://uspsa.org/classifiers/03-09.pdf

[kimel]

We shot this Sunday. This is an adaptation of a stage from Nats in 1998 http://www.uspsa.org.../opnstage2.html.

We double and triple checked our setup and the vision barriers only appear to be there to increase setup time. They do not obscure the view of the targets making this nothing more than a speed shoot (which I was slow at for some reason)

The significant problem is that the 8x8 vision barriers in the classifier are set away from the targets whereas when it was shot at Nats the barriers were right on the targets.

The taping of targets between strings makes this one real slow to run if you clear out the shooter between strings. We finally opted for holster hot, hands on head and the score keeper would stand in front of the shooter watching them while targets were scored and taped.

Limited 77 points 0 penalties 9.40seconds = 8.1915 hit factor

I expect to hear that this one has either been seriously modified or thrown out shortly.

Me thinks that the person(s) responsible for picking the new classifiers are not well aquainted with the problems of 2D design for a 3D world that anyone that has done serious stage design is all too well aquainted with.

This post has been edited by kimel: 08 September 2004 - 09:58 PM

[LPatterson]

The use of any stage that requires scoring between strings invites excessive squad time and safety hazards. If the shooter does not UASC between strings then the original LAMR applies if the shooter bobbles or drops the gun. If the RO is scoring targets then who is in direct control of the shooter.

Rule 8.3.8 Paraphased states that "Range is clear" command MUST be given before personnel MAY move forward to score, patch, reset, etc. To me that means that no one can be forward of a loaded gun.

Based on that rule, as an RO I should not allow anyone forward of a loaded gun so if a popper blows over, do I have to have the shooter unload & show clear.

Vinny this might be time for a rules interpretation.

[Ron Ankeny]

We were going to shoot this one at our next match. Thanks for the info, we will back away from it for now. Kind of makes one wonder where USPSA came up with high hit factors if the design is flawed.

gw_69

The question about being forward of a loaded gun is a good one. I stole it and put it in the rules thread.

[kimel]

I agree graywolf, UASC really should be issued between strings. We actually did this for the first couple shooters.

IMHO the requirement to score and tape between strings adds unnecessary complexity to the stage and eliminates it from being a good classifier from the get go. The problems with the vision barriers just adds to the problem.

The intent of the stage is a good one; the execution just leaves a lot to be desired. If it were up to me I would modify the stage to eliminate the scoring between strings and move the vision barriers back to where they actually obscure the targets requiring movement.

[Norm Lee]

A fast sampling of the new classifier book would seem to indicate that most, if not all, classifiers with multiple strings now carry the admonishment to tape and score between strings. Gonna be a pain in the butt

Cheers,

Norm

[kimel]

Egad.

[rtr]

Shot it yesterday, guys who set it up said the same thing "we measured it 6 times and its really supposed to look like this".

We did not tape between strings, we only looked to see if there were any mikes.

Anyways Open 9.49 76 points 8.0084 HF any idea where that is?

I was pleased that both strings were within a few hundredths of eachother, something like 4.74 and 4.73

[rtr]

Open 9.49 76 points 8.0084 HF is 67.0832% according to Sedro.

[yeahyeah]

Shot the "on the move" CM 03-09 today at a special classifier, didn't seem correct when we shot it, just found out the wrong diagram is on the USPSA web site. That kinna sucks! I shot it well!

Just noticed that USPSA has two differant diagrams posted on there site one is worg and one is right.

[BBQ]

What!? Are you serious?

I did pretty good too. Looks like we need to revise the diagram before we put up any classifier later on. May be other classifier have 2nd version of it too.

[yeahyeah]

USPSA said that most have been "updated"

[Mistral404]

Shortly after the new classifiers came out we shot this one. It just did not make sense. So we modified the instructions for safety reason. We used steel posts on the barriers and the outside targets were in the line of fire so to speak. I had numerous emails with USPSA about it.

They said they changed it.

So guess what, our guys set it up again a couple of months later with a download from USPSA.

IT WAS WRONG AGAIN.

What a PIA, we had guys modifying the instructions and acting like it would be ok. Luckily saner minds pervailed.

I hope we get to shoot the corrected version soon. This is a cool stage.

[Flexmoney]

yeahyeah,

I merged your thread into the existing thread that we had going on 03-09

[Tom Mainus]

So which one is the correct one? I have this thing set up right now on our range for tomorrows match and we said the same thing. What use is the vision barriers, you can see everything from one spot. I just checked the USPSA web page and the diagram they have on there is different from my book. T-1 and T-4 are pulled up, which makes more sense. That way you have to move to see the other targets. If they knew what they sent out was wrong, why didn't they tell us.

[Flexmoney]

email Amidon

[ParaJoe]

We shot this last weekend. Time was 12.35 and hit factor was 5.749. Don't know what this works out too. Hoping someone could tell me. Thanks, JOe

[300lbGorilla]

ParaJoe, on Mar 23 2005, 03:47 PM, said:

We shot this last weekend. Time was 12.35 and hit factor was 5.749. Don't know what this works out too. Hoping someone could tell me. Thanks, JOe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Click the link in the post just above yours and go to the Classifier Calculator.

[Fullauto_Shooter]

Shot this one today at Waco.

Time: 6.99
Points: 72
HF: 10.3004
Me: Limited A (as of yesterday)

First run felt slow (3.79) - took me way too long to get moving and had a bit of trigger freeze. Second run was much better (3.20) - still hesitated a little too much on beginning my movement and then got a D.

Looks like it should be around 90.8% for Limited. Just made A class yesterday and today I shot my first first Master Class classifier. Needless to say, I'm pretty pumped.

[shred]

I shot it also at the Waco match.. FWIW, it was set up so you had to move to see the last target on each string.

3.12 and 3.10 strings (Open), but too many dropped points to be any good, I suspect.

I like this one.. it tests meaningful skills and is pretty easy to run. Scoring between strings isn't required unless there's hits on the No-shoot (remember, only two per string score)

[300lbGorilla]

Shot this one yesterday. Don't remember points, but I do remember getting on the trigger early and firing an extra shot (thought it was a miss since I didn't have the gun up far enough to see over the gun yet). Ended up being a B... extra shot and extra hit penalties. Open, first run was mid-3.5s IIRC and second (where the extra shot/hit happened) was low 4s... stupid human.

[TheOtherErik]

we have this classifier schedualed for our next match...does anyone know if the diagram has been updated?


eduhit: i just looked at the uspsa page and they have a "updated on" colum now. A few of them including this one were updated on 4-21-05

This post has been edited by TheOtherErik: 03 May 2005 - 05:52 PM

[Flexmoney]

Make sure yuor Match Director knows to pull the diagram from the "new and improved" version on the web page.

[TheOtherErik]

while this is on my mind...I wonder what USPSA is going to do about the HHF or if this has even come to their attention? A bunch of people allready shot the stage whith the wrong diagram which was easier. This deffinantly thorws the HHF if all the "easy version" scores are not removed.

[shred]

From shooting it the 'right' way a month or so ago, I'd say that the HHF is about right as-is. A few shooters may have some artificially high scores on file, but one or two of those isn't usually a problem.