Small, far, and difficult sequences vs big, close and easy sequences.

[Ringer]

Big, close, simple.

 

Hate track meets.

[High Spade Mikey Wilson]

Small and far away.....I like a challenge once in awhile. Not saying I would go every month, just that day as stated in the question.

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

I’ve already given my answer to the options listed, however, my real preference is pistols 5-6 yds, rifle 10-25 yds.  And I like action, props, lines, etc.   I do not like senseless scenarios or sequences.

 

Creeker has it exactly right in that it takes more than big/close and simple sequences to make a fun and memorable match.

[Grass Range]

So big and close wins the discussion. Speed over accuracy

[Mister Badly]

I prefer big and close as I have a problem seeing my sights. Cause I'm a dang Outlaw!!

[Roscoe Regulator]

1. Other than the Blackhawks, we generally don't shoot target pistols.

2. If not competitive for speed, even winning a category, you still have hopes for shooting clean.

3. The old and slow contingent should not be ignored. Big and close is bound to be popular.
4. Mixing it up, even making it interesting for gunfighters, is probably a good thing.

 

[doc roy l. pain]

I like a mixture of each. Not saying to create a track meet to kill us old folks, but would like to see a few stages mixed in where you have to get behind your sights. 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

50 minutes ago, Grass Range said:

So big and close wins the discussion. Speed over accuracy

 

How is accuracy in SASS measured and scored? And how is it scored differently between big and close and far and small matches?

[Captain Bill Burt]

6 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

How is accuracy in SASS measured and scored? And how is it scored differently between big and close and far and small matches?

Thank you.

 

[Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971]

32 minutes ago, doc roy l. pain said:

I like a mixture of each. Not saying to create a track meet to kill us old folks, but would like to see a few stages mixed in where you have to get behind your sights. 

Plate racks with ~6-inch diameter plates do that.  I see plate racks at many matches.

[Captain Bill Burt]

10 minutes ago, Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971 said:

Plate racks with ~6-inch diameter plates do that.  I see plate racks at many matches.

Just the view from my saddle, but I don't think of reactive targets where the shooter gets more than one chance per target to get it down as falling into the category of 'small'. 

[Mister Badly]

We had a stage this week with a plate rack. A miss was a miss. And a reminder for shooters to sight in their rifles 

[Smokin Gator SASS #29736]

I think there's the tiniest possibility that there's something in between very large and close stages and stages that would cause a few good shooters to have 80 misses between them. But these extreme examples are always brought up when some shooters merely say they'd prefer that the targets were just a few yards further out compared to big and in your face. Happens every discussion on the topic.

[williemescal]

On 4/10/2022 at 7:03 AM, Captain Bill Burt said:

Simple question. 

 

You have a choice between going to a match with small targets that are far away with difficult shooting sequences (less than 5% of attendees can stay clean) or one with big targets that are close with easy shooting sequences (more than 20% can stay clean).   Everything else about the matches is the same, distance traveled round count, awards, attendees, everything.  

 

What's your choice?

 

Edited to add that there IS a third choice, you can stay home.

 

["Big Boston"]

By the sheer number of responses, it does seem to be an issue. 

 

The issue has come up at our club as well. The targets remain the same size, close in or further away is the issue. 

 

Slowly, over a period of about 2 years, I noticed that the targets seemed to be getting a bit in the face. Before saying anything I looked back at the pictures I'd taken of the odd scenario in the past. I mentioned it at the next meet, and the discussions began. It felt like I'd just farted in the elevator. 

 

Within a couple of matches I noticed that the targets were a bit further out. Someone had complained that the shotgun pellet spatter was getting bad and that if the targets were further out it would be less. 

 

So, there is a safety issue. 

 

My personal view is that the guidelines in the rule book are good, well thought out. 

 

Just to review:

 

o Revolver targets: 7 to 10 yards.

o Shotgun targets: 8 to 16 yards.

o Rifle targets: 13 to 50 yards.

 

When I practice at the local range, I like to have the targets a bit on the far away, except for the shotgun. A sawed off shotgun is not a long range weapon. 

 

I've never seen a rifle target 50 yards out at our range.

 

My goal is to be a smooth shooter, and I want to be a good shot. I never was, am not now, and never will be fast, so bringing the targets closer doesn't get my vote. 

 

BB 

 

[williemescal]

I shoot this game for fun!! If it seems like work, or I have to think about it like I'm in school trying to do calculus I am not inclined to go to those shoots. I am inclined to do what makes the game grow and add membership and numbers to the game. I am not sure what that is? It seems like people want to make the game hard. I dont think hard will grow the game. 

[Eyesa Horg]

At the club where I started, closed now, we had a couple bays with targets at around 50 yards. Your heart sank initially, but it was all good and fun! You just had to actually aim and everyone was still on the same playing field.

[Totes Magoats]

As an MD, I sure like hearing shooters say "Wow, that's the fastest clean stage I have ever shot!"

 

The targets don't need to be car hoods, but close and easy is what I like.

 

Totes

[Hendo]

9 minutes ago, Totes Magoats said:

As an MD, I sure like hearing shooters say "Wow, that's the fastest clean stage I have ever shot!"

 

The targets don't need to be car hoods, but close and easy is what I like.

 

Totes

You could put a car hood out there. I'll find a way to miss it.

[Matthew Duncan]

23 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

The old SASS saying, There’s no target too big or too close that you can’t miss!

Shucks.  I’ve honed my shooting skills to the level that I fail to hit shotgun targets too.

[Texas Jack Black]

4 hours ago, williemescal said:

I shoot this game for fun!! If it seems like work, or I have to think about it like I'm in school trying to do calculus I am not inclined to go to those shoots. I am inclined to do what makes the game grow and add membership and numbers to the game. I am not sure what that is? It seems like people want to make the game hard. I dont think hard will grow the game. 

 The stages have become easier and the numbers are still declining. I do not know the answer but feel good awards  turn some off to the game..

 

Best Wishes

[Col. Cornelius Gilliam, SASS#5875TG]

Based on those extreme choices, small and far, hands down.  I would deal with the "difficult" sequences.  I like the challenge of hitting smaller targets fast.  Working on that skill set is my preference. My first choice though, would be a variety of target distance, spacing and sequences.  Variety is interesting to me, but I also prefer the target sequences make sense.  Shooting a goofy, overly difficult sequence "just because" doesn't make it fun. 

 

Based on your own description of small, sounds like SASS recommended target sizes are considered "small".  You stated:

 

"...pistols lets say anything equal to or less than 20x18 is small and for rifles anything equal to or less than 16x16 is small"

 

An entire two day match of nothing but "Big and Close and Easy" I'll stay home.

 

Interesting you chose such extremes, tying "difficult" to small targets and "easy" to big targets. Nobody likes P-Trap stages!  That's kinda a slanted question isn't it?

[Captain Bill Burt]

56 minutes ago, Col. Cornelius Gilliam, SASS#5875TG said:

Based on those extreme choices, small and far, hands down.  I would deal with the "difficult" sequences.  I like the challenge of hitting smaller targets fast.  Working on that skill set is my preference. My first choice though, would be a variety of target distance, spacing and sequences.  Variety is interesting to me, but I also prefer the target sequences make sense.  Shooting a goofy, overly difficult sequence "just because" doesn't make it fun. 

 

Based on your own description of small, sounds like SASS recommended target sizes are considered "small".  You stated:

 

"...pistols lets say anything equal to or less than 20x18 is small and for rifles anything equal to or less than 16x16 is small"

 

An entire two day match of nothing but "Big and Close and Easy" I'll stay home.

 

Interesting you chose such extremes, tying "difficult" to small targets and "easy" to big targets. Nobody likes P-Trap stages!  That's kinda a slanted question isn't it?

Only if you equate difficult with P trap.  Some difficult stages are P traps, some aren't.

 

 

[Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903]

With the options given I’ll take big and close but I do want some movement. I shot Bullseye Pistol for 13 years shooting Slow Fire one handed at 50 yards, Timed and Rapid Fire at 25 yards. I shot 1 Cowboy Match in 2005 and was hooked and only shot 1 more Bullseye Match.  
 

If I ever decide I want small and distant I’ll go back to Bullseye.

 

 Thanks 

Randy