Is balance actually a bad thing?

[9245]

Looking through the rules one thing that has always bothered me is the apparent attempt to balance things, and I just wonder if I am alone in my thinking on this.

 

I get the point of balancing, so that everyone can compete on a more or less equal footing regardless of what they have, and that’s a good thing, but it seems to me that, at least the way it is implemented, can actually cause the opposite and actually favor certain firearms or shooting styles at the expense of others because in the attempt to balance they actually create an imbalance.

 

For example, shotguns.  The rule is start empty and only load 2 at max, that is designed so that the people who use side by sides are not completely smoked by, well, pretty much everyone else, because in reality, side by sides just were not a great choice by the time you got to the late 1880s or so, there is a reason why they went obsolete.  So what’s wrong with balance?  Imagine you have an 1897, as many do, and imagine that all else is equal and you are shooting against a side by side, that guy with the side by side can load both rounds more or less simultaneously, snap his gun closed, and fire his second shot immediately after his first if he wants, meanwhile the one with the 1897 must either fiddle with single loading, which to be fair can be done very fast with practice, but will always be slower than the side by side, or alternatively he can double load, and then slam fire, which will be about the same fire rate as the side by side, but he is still going to have a slower load, so assuming that all else is equal, the side by side will always win.  The idea was to make it so the 1897 did not have an advantage but you actually gave the advantage to the side by side.  In reality of course the 1897 would be vastly superior.
 

The second thing that bugs me is just historicity, there are some, myself included, that relish in the history more than the shooting and really strive for authenticity and balance attempts create an unnatural environment, by that I mean that were you actually living in the old west period you would purchase your firearms based solely upon, effectiveness, price, and availability, which means that naturally some people would be significantly better armed than others, but that is the same as it is today, but balancing attempts instead mean that everyone is artificially carrying pretty much the exact same thing and that same thing is often not the best that would have been available.  Gameplay wise it also has the effect of limiting variety, it can make it dull when everyone, almost without fail, always shows up with the exact same stuff as everyone else.

 

I don’t know, maybe that is just me being persnickety on a day when I’m feeling extra ornery.  But it just seems like maybe there should be some better thought put in to this stuff, perhaps different divisions, like using the example above, maybe put the side by side guys in an “early west” division or something with it limited to say 1879 instead of 1899.  Just a thought.  What do you think?

[9245]

Just brain storming ideas, maybe balance could be better achieved simply a a change to scoring?  Everyone competes as they do now up to 1899 (anything goes pretty much equipment wise as long as it’s 19th century), for the overall winner, bring older if you want to but don’t expect to win, BUT sub categorize scores by decade, say 1849, 1859, 1869, 1879, 1889, and 1899.  So you basically just get 2 scores instead of one, one vs everyone, and one vs your own chosen decade, for example 1870s people compete directly against other 1870s people and also against the pack, so you could say finish first in your decade, but get creamed in the overall, but the overall does not really count, you really only compete against your own period.  That way the system auto balances.  You bring whatever is appropriate to your character and chosen period, NOT what you think will beat the 1890’s guys, meanwhile the 1890’s people don’t have to play fair with the 1870s people because they are not actually directly competing against each other.  Just like they wouldn’t have in reality, H.G. Wells be damned.

 

I don’t know, I just think that is a more elegant and fair solution that does not actually require changing anything too radically.  What do you think?

["Big Boston"]

You're not wrong. But basically, you have to market a product that the users want to and continue to use. 

 

I run shoots for about 5 shooters, (if everyone shows up), and I do a bit of tweaking of the scenarios to level the playing field. I do not end all the scenarios with the shotgun. SxS shotguns tend to eat up a bit of time shucking the empties, but the time stops at the last shot. IOW, shucking the empties is off the clock. It's little things like that, the details, that help make it fair. 

 

Then there is the targets, big and close helps the shooters that don't shoot as well, and does nothing for the shooter that can shoot accurately, loads good ammunition and has accurate firearms. It does help the fast shooter that has mediocre guns, average ammo and shoots minimally accurate. 

 

I set up the targets a bit further out that usual. Or range has a rule that you can't shoot steel with a pistol any closer than 10 yards. I set my pistol targets at 10 yards to comply. Rifle targets are at 20 yards. I'd prefer them a bit further out, because of space limitations of the narrow range. I set the shotgun at 15 yards. Basically at skeet distance. Mainly because my targets bounce around too much any closer.

 

BB.

 

PS: I have posted this picture before.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Did you forget about the Winchester 1887 lever action SG? 🤔😶😂

[9245]

9 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Did you forget about the Winchester 1887 lever action SG? 🤔😶😂

I did not, but the 1897 was the better example.  The 1887 probably benefits as much from the rule as the side by sides do, ghost load for the win.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

2 minutes ago, 9245 said:

I did not, but the 1897 was the better example.  The 1887 probably benefits as much from the rule as the side by sides do, ghost load for the win.

What I have always wondered is why we can't load'em(2 rnds)when we stage'em.

SxS left open, 87 and 97 with empty chamber and closed action.

[Dick Pinkerton SASS# 87592]

14 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

What I have always wondered is why we can't load'em(2 rnds)when we stage'em.

SxS left open, 87 and 97 with empty chamber and closed action.

I love this idea

[Yellowstone Vic SASS#32968]

Sorry.......I don't agree with you on your assessment of SxS having the advantage.

 

Here is an example of a '97 in the hands of a very skilled shooter:

 

An '87 in the hands of Stoney or Lassiter (and others) is extremely fast / effective also.

 

You will not see much fumbling / fiddling.

 

Factors such as Dexterity, Shooting Skill (Experience), and Age are a large part of the sport.

 

You as a shooter choose the guns / shooting style / personal goals and dedication time that you utilize/commit to the sport.

 

I think what we have provides plenty of accommodations / opportunities for everyone.

 

Others will and do feel differently.....

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9 by Yellowstone Vic SASS#32968
Correction.

[9245]

1 hour ago, Yellowstone Vic SASS#32968 said:

Sorry.......I don't agree with you on your assessment of SxS having the advantage.

 

Here is an example of a '97 in the hands of a very skilled shooter:

 

An '87 in the hands of Boas or Lassiter (and others) is extremely fast / effective also.

 

You will not see much fumbling / fiddling.

 

Factors such as Dexterity, Shooting Skill (Experience), and Age are a large part of the sport.

 

You as a shooter choose the guns / shooting style / personal goals and dedication time that you utilize/commit to the sport.

 

I think what we have provides plenty of accommodations / opportunities for everyone.

 

Others will and do feel differently.....

 

 

 

 

Jerry Miculek can fire his revolver faster than I can a semi auto so surely everyone can right?

 

My point is not that it cannot be done, only that given two shooters of equal skill with their platform and all else equal the side by side will always win, because the rules give it an artificial advantage.  But in reality, without that rule the 1897 would win every single time.

[Cowtown Scout, SASS #53540 L]

How long have you Actually been shooting Cowboy Action?

[Eyesa Horg]

Unfortunately our matches don't get enough players to, add to the already few dozen categories and breaking them down to decade would be a nightmare and essentially every player would get an award for being the only one doing whatever it is! Not everyone plays the game to win. A good amount to it for the fun comradery.

[9245]

1 hour ago, Dick Pinkerton SASS# 87592 said:

I love this idea

I do as well.  Which is what I’m getting at, I think the rules need to be tweaked because in the effort to balance things they through the balance off.

 

Imagine though if the balance were removed, the side by side would not be competitive, but a fully loaded 1887 vs a fully loaded 1897 with an on the clock reload required would be a very interesting matchup.  And it makes sense, no one in the late 19th century would have held an 1897 in one hand and a side by side in the other and seriously wonder which would be a better weapon, but they easily could have held an 1897 in one hand and an 1887 in the other and wondered which was better.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

12 minutes ago, 9245 said:

My point is not that it cannot be done, only that given two shooters of equal skill with their platform and all else equal the side by side will always win, because the rules give it an artificial advantage.  But in reality, without that rule the 1897 would win every single time.

Shoot a match before you make incorrect assumptions and statements.

 

AND the beauty of our game is shooters are free to make any decisions they wish to (within the rules) to advance their opportunities to excel.

 

If 1897's were such a disadvantaged platform - no "competition orientation" shooter would have any use for them.

 

Since I see plenty of 97's; including the ones I shoot. 

The decision to forego 1897's is obviously not occuring.

[9245]

5 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Unfortunately our matches don't get enough players to, add to the already few dozen categories and breaking them down to decade would be a nightmare and essentially every player would get an award for being the only one doing whatever it is! Not everyone plays the game to win. A good amount to it for the fun comradery.

That was only a brainstorm, I tried to think of something that would be simple to implement and keep everyone happy.  I never said that was the only solution.  My only point is that a tweak is required.

[Sedalia Dave]

1 minute ago, 9245 said:

My point is not that it cannot be done, only that given two shooters of equal skill with their platform and all else equal the side by side will always win, because the rules give it an artificial advantage.  But in reality, without that rule the 1897 would win every single time.

 

Maybe you should do your homework and get some shooting under your belt first.

 

Things you are overlooking.

Transitions make up more than 1/2 of a shooters total time.

National and World champions have been won shooting just about every firearm legal for SASS and in almost every category available.

 

WHY??? Because there are so many variables in play that there is no one perfect category and choice of firearms that always wins.

 

BTW when it comes to speed, the current SASS world record for 4 rounds out of a shotgun while hitting all 4 targets is currently held by a 97.

 

Link to the official SASS world Records.

[Sedalia Dave]

Forgot to add that the one single thing all those champions have in common is not practice but Perfect Practice. Analyzing in detail every movement performed while shooting a stage and eliminating all wasted motion. 

 

They have fired tens of thousands of rounds in practice. Doing 1 shot drills to perfect transitions. They have also done thousands of hours dry fire practice.

 

All the above is what it takes to be in the top 1%. 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

2 hours ago, "Big Boston" said:

Then there is the targets, big and close helps the shooters that don't shoot as well, and does nothing for the shooter that can shoot accurately, loads good ammunition and has accurate firearms. It does help the fast shooter that has mediocre guns, average ammo and shoots minimally accurate.

Anyone who proposes the above doesn't understand shooter skillsets, math or stage setup.

 

Skillsets:

Fast shooters are fast because they understand firearms fundamentals and have their basics in order.

Fast shooters are fast because they don't miss - not because they can miss fast.

 

Scoring: 

The longer your stage takes to complete (meaning distances, movements, prop manipulation, reloads, etc.) the LESS important accuracy becomes.

 

A 20 second stage with 2 misses increases a shooters time by 50%.

 

A 50 second stage with 2 misses only increases their time by 20%.

 

Stage Setup:

Surprisingly - the speed at which shooters operate their individual guns does not vary between shooters as much as some believe. 

(Look at speed event time from any large match - the minimal difference between world champion and mid pack shooter will amaze you).

Where the fast shooters excel is transitions, foot movement, holstering and the 1000 other micro components that determine how long a stage takes to complete.

 

Anyone who believes that target distance will change the shooters standings (or expose the speedsters as mediocre shooters) is sadly mistaken - it will simply increase the spread between the current fast shooters and the current mid pack mediocre.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

A few thoughts.

It has been said that SASS is more Old West Fantasy than Old West Historical Reenactment.  This is very, very true, and I prefer it that way.   There is NCOWS for people who are more into historical accuracy, and that's a good thing too.  I think both approaches are valid one.   That being said, there is no reason why, within SASS, you can't be as historically accurate as possible, if that's what you want to do.

Given the fantasy aspect of our sport, I think some things that are no allowed, should be, like the Mare's Leg.   I also think that there should be a place for anything that existed prior to 1900 in our game, even if it is just a side match.   There are some things that I think can be main match legal, but aren't, and if they come up, I will discuss them, but I try not to start the discussion on them. 

Specifically on shotguns, while I do think that "preloading" the 87 and the 97 as if it were the same as a rifle, would give those guns an unfair advantage, and it should not be done.  The Handbook does say that if the stage directions allow for it, both of the repeaters can be fully loaded on the clock.  Over the years. I have seen stage directions that so allow for it exactly twice.  I personally feel that the stoking of the repeaters, ON the clock, should always be allowed.   And the funny thing is, good shooters with both of them probably won't do it, as they've gotten very good on single loading.

Generically, which is better, the SxS or the 97?  Eh, in the hands of an expert or even an average shooter, I don't think either has an advantage.

Finally, I am in respectful awe of some of fastest shooters.   I think it's great that they have so mastered their skills.   Knowing I'll never compete at that level, I try to have fun in different way.  Note:  Competing for the belt buckle is fun too.  I just mean there are different ways to enjoy the game.  For me, it's trying from a clean match every time, or using different and/or unusual guns from time to time.   Now, there are some guns I am better with than others, and if I really wanna try, especially if it's at one of the bigger shoots that recognizes more than just the top 3 in a particular category, I'll use them and try my darndest to win something.   And, believe it or not, I have.  I choose to believe that the time I won 3rd place in the category I was shooting had more than 3 people in it. 

Anyway, use what you have/like/want to use.  Have fun, whatever that means.  Don't worry about the various details that seem to be off for whatever reason.   When the opportunity arises to talk about those things, do so.  Even if they never change, there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion from time to time.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Just how would 2 shells in the magazine of a '87 and '97 have an advantage over a open SxS with 2 shells in the chamber? 🤔

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

37 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Just how would 2 shells in the magazine of a '87 and '97 have an advantage over a open SxS with 2 shells in the chamber? 🤔

It wouldn't - but I'm guessing someone somewhere got whooped up on by a SxS shooter and has to blame the equipment, rules or stage setup allowance for their performance. 

So we need to look at anything that allows them to compete - "Hey, I know - let me fully load my repeating shotgun; while limiting the SxS shooter"

[Griff]

Revisit your brainstorming after you've shot 100 matches.  Your assumptions about leveling the "playing field" are correct.  In theory, at least.  However, in practice, it far less than effective.  Simply because, as pointed out above, individual skills and practice regimens can overcome those false senses of advantage.  Personally, I think it's easier to master the side-by-side, vs becoming proficient enough with the '97 to overcome its inherent weakness.  Going back to when I started the game, it was the general consensus that an adjustable sighted sixgun (Ruger and its ilk) had an advantage over the non adjustable, fixed sighted Colt SAA and its clones.  This was true when distances to the pistol targets were at 20 yards and beyond.  However, it is more likely that the real reason for the adjustable sighted revolver was the very real nature of the sights themselves.  SAAs usually have very thin front sight blades and pinched, small rear sight, not ultimum for quick accurate distance shooting.  Whereas the Ruger possess a thick very squared off front sight a large prominent rear sight, But, in practice, as shooter skillsets improved with the SAA, the actual advantage of the Ruger sights become less important.  EOT was 6 years old before a Traditional shooter won the Overall title (1988).  However, its been understanding that was due more to the level of practice of the then Champions with their traditional revolver.  The last number I heard used in practice by an EOT winner was 50,000 rounds fired in practice alone.  And yet... Modern category shooters continue to win just as often as Traditional shooters until the two categories were eliminated after the 2008 EOT.  It didn't hurt that target distances had grown progressively shorter. 

 

My memory ( as fallible as it may be), is that double shooters might have had a slight advantage over the '97 until the early 1990s.  Prior to that time, the only way I saw '97 shooters load their shotgun was, one in the chamber, close the action, then shove the 2nd into the magazine.  The first person I saw singley load their '97 was Tequila, who won overall in '98.  (also as Modern shooter).  The next person I saw do that was Evil Roy, who won the Traditional category that same year, but, I'd seen both use the single load method for several years before they really perfected the technique.  

 

Next, let's discuss the rifle.  Until the early '90s, the Winchester 1892 & Marlin 1894 were the rifle of choice for champions.  As, this was pre- "short stroked" toggle links, aka '66 & '73 Winchesters & their clones.  Both the '66 & '73 have a significantly longer factory stroke than either the '92 or '94.  Their appearances in competition was mainly limited to those wishing to indulge their fantasy of the old west, vs. any significant competition bent.  The Short Stroke kit altered than paradigm forever.

 

I get tease unmercifully for being a slow shooter.  I admit it, I am more interested in hitting targets in a corner, or edge, or other less desirable place and a clean match than going fast.  However, I can, and have, won stages in other games with a SAA, beating double actions and semi-auto shooters.  Within its ammo limitations, it really is a very fast action.   It's not the equipment that makes a winner, it's the mindset to leads an individual to practice until they can perform under the pressure of competition against others of a like mindset.   If you want to be competitive, don't choose a Henry  or Spencer rifle, but anything else can be very fast with enough practice and enough ammo down range.  One cannot predict a match winner based solely on the equipment they choose.  The only thing you can say, it's unlikely that a Frontiersman will be top overall most anywhere.  

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

1 hour ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Just how would 2 shells in the magazine of a '87 and '97 have an advantage over a open SxS with 2 shells in the chamber? 🤔

It wouldn't.   But a 97 loaded with 5 in magazine would.   

In other words, all shotgun loading on clock, and allow magazine stuffing on every stage.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

35 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

It wouldn't.   But a 97 loaded with 5 in magazine would.   

In other words, all shotgun loading on clock, and allow magazine stuffing on every stage.

Please encourage this. 

Please. 

Please.

Loading the tube ON THE CLOCK?

 

Against fairly decent SxS, 97 or 87 shooters? 

We will all be done shooting before the magazine is stoked.

 

Unless your going to lobby for a significant change in shotgun belts; legalizing those that are set up for magazine quad loading techniques - the tube load will be much slower than current methods.

 

[watab kid]

here i thought you were talking about phyical balance and yes its a good thing when it comes to keeping me upright 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

9 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

It wouldn't.   But a 97 loaded with 5 in magazine would.   

In other words, all shotgun loading on clock, and allow magazine stuffing on every stage.

That's why I said load 2, when you stage.

The rules already allow you to stoke on the clock.

[High Spade Mikey Wilson]

I've seen this arguement before in other shooting sports I've been involved with, and it usually involves someone who wants to keep up with the Jones's and can't. Not saying that's exactly the case here, but it comes down to this. Some shooters are great, some are average, and some are poor no matter what the rules may be. The common denominator is we all like to shoot and act as the cowboys again of our youth. We already have options. You can purchase and use whatever legal shotgun you want. Your match score goes both to overall match ranking, and the ranking in your shooting class. Lastly if you are not fast you always have the option to try and shoot a clean match. You are never going to have complete parity because every persons ability is different. Quite frankly I think we already do a pretty good job at keeping things as fair as possible.

["Big Boston"]

12 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Anyone who proposes the above doesn't understand shooter skillsets, math or stage setup.

 

Skillsets:

Fast shooters are fast because they understand firearms fundamentals and have their basics in order.

Fast shooters are fast because they don't miss - not because they can miss fast.

 

Scoring: 

The longer your stage takes to complete (meaning distances, movements, prop manipulation, reloads, etc.) the LESS important accuracy becomes.

 

A 20 second stage with 2 misses increases a shooters time by 50%.

 

A 50 second stage with 2 misses only increases their time by 20%.

 

Stage Setup:

Surprisingly - the speed at which shooters operate their individual guns does not vary between shooters as much as some believe. 

(Look at speed event time from any large match - the minimal difference between world champion and mid pack shooter will amaze you).

Where the fast shooters excel is transitions, foot movement, holstering and the 1000 other micro components that determine how long a stage takes to complete.

 

Anyone who believes that target distance will change the shooters standings (or expose the speedsters as mediocre shooters) is sadly mistaken - it will simply increase the spread between the current fast shooters and the current mid pack mediocre.

 

I stepped up to be the organizer because nobody else would, not because I have the paygrade to do the job. Thanks for the reply. It's pretty evident that I don't understand shooter skillsets, math or stage setup. I really don't have any business running a small club. Your reply made me realize that and I'll likely tell the others shooters that this is our last season. I'm done trying to understand this game. Heck, I don't really understand your reply. I thought for a moment that you were calling me stupid using fancy words, is that what you were doing, or were you trying to help me.

 

You've seen our targets, know the distances, could you please give me some setups and scenarios that would improve things. I'll attach a copy of our latest program.

 

I have been struggling with balancing my many hobbies, you've made the decision on which to drop a bit easier.  

 

But before I leave this sport and move on, could you explain the psychology behind shooters wanting me to place the targets closer and closer. What skillset are they lacking or compensating for. 

 

BB

Proposed scenario July 5th, 2026.pdf

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

57 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

That's why I said load 2, when you stage.

The rules already allow you to stoke on the clock.

 

Not really.   It's only allowed if the stage instructions specifically say you can.   In all the years I've been doing this, I seen it allowed twice.

For what it's worth, I think I might actually be a little faster with the SxS, but I usually use the 97 because I find it to be more "fun."

I know I can load faster one at a time than I can stuffing the magazine and then going clackity boom as fast as I can, but the reason I would *personally* do it if it were allowed is, again, because it's a lot of fun.

I know for a fact that loading an 87 one at a time is MUCH faster than trying to stuff that magazine.

Edited July 10 by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Looks like a good shoot to me, Boston.

The miss with the shotgun is a miss is unusual, but you know, every once in a while, it's a valid variation.   I'd probably use the Parker for this one, and give the target both barrels every shot just to make sure it goes down!  

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

8 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

Not really.   It's only allowed if the stage instructions specifically say you can.   In all the years I've been doing this, I seen it allowed twice.

For what it's worth, I think I might actually be a little faster with the SxS, but I usually use the 97 because I find it to be more "fun."

I know I can load faster one at a time than I can stuffing the magazine and then going clackity boom as fast as I can, but the reason I would *personally* do it if it were allowed is, again, because it's a lot of fun.

I know for a fact that loading an 87 one at a time is MUCH faster than trying to stuff that magazine.

Some clubs allow stoke as SOP. 😉

 

[Eyesa Horg]

50 minutes ago, "Big Boston" said:

 

I stepped up to be the organizer because nobody else would, not because I have the paygrade to do the job. Thanks for the reply. It's pretty evident that I don't understand shooter skillsets, math or stage setup. I really don't have any business running a small club. Your reply made me realize that and I'll likely tell the others shooters that this is our last season. I'm done trying to understand this game. Heck, I don't really understand your reply. I thought for a moment that you were calling me stupid using fancy words, is that what you were doing, or were you trying to help me.

 

You've seen our targets, know the distances, could you please give me some setups and scenarios that would improve things. I'll attach a copy of our latest program.

 

I have been struggling with balancing my many hobbies, you've made the decision on which to drop a bit easier.  

 

But before I leave this sport and move on, could you explain the psychology behind shooters wanting me to place the targets closer and closer. What skillset are they lacking or compensating for. 

 

BB

Proposed scenario July 5th, 2026.pdf 370.69 kB · 5 downloads

Looks like you did a fine job to me! Looks like a lot of fun for a small group. Good on ya for taking it on and I'm pretty sure the other shooters would like to see you continue.

[John Kloehr]

16 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

What I have always wondered is why we can't load'em(2 rnds)when we stage'em.

SxS left open, 87 and 97 with empty chamber and closed action.

 

See freak event at 13 seconds (not that it could not happen to rounds on a belt, and I do not know of any such events):

 

 

[John Kloehr]

1 hour ago, "Big Boston" said:

 

I stepped up to be the organizer because nobody else would, not because I have the paygrade to do the job. Thanks for the reply. It's pretty evident that I don't understand shooter skillsets, math or stage setup. I really don't have any business running a small club. Your reply made me realize that and I'll likely tell the others shooters that this is our last season. I'm done trying to understand this game. Heck, I don't really understand your reply. I thought for a moment that you were calling me stupid using fancy words, is that what you were doing, or were you trying to help me.

 

You've seen our targets, know the distances, could you please give me some setups and scenarios that would improve things. I'll attach a copy of our latest program.

 

I have been struggling with balancing my many hobbies, you've made the decision on which to drop a bit easier.  

 

But before I leave this sport and move on, could you explain the psychology behind shooters wanting me to place the targets closer and closer. What skillset are they lacking or compensating for. 

 

BB

Proposed scenario July 5th, 2026.pdf 370.69 kB · 3 downloads

 

I would shoot those stages. Interesting twist on the mulligan, also allowing a reshoot for no score.

[Eyesa Horg]

3 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

 

See freak event at 13 seconds (not that it could not happen to rounds on a belt, and I do not know of any such events):

 

 

Now that was bizarre!

[Doc Shapiro]

The initial premise of this discussion is flat out wrong.  I spent years going deep down the rabbit hole of gear selection based on data. I've shot nearly a million rounds in the course of gathering the data and practice.  I've gathered data from several other shooters.  It all leads to the exact same conclusion. It's not the gear or the guns or the ammo.  It's the biggest variable there is.  It's the shooter.  Put in the tens of thousands of hours it takes to master, keep notes on your progress and gather the data, and you'll find the same.