ATTENTION: The following is merely a comparison of two matches that I have attended. Both matches were fun and interesting. While I will be critical on some points, I do not mean to critisize either match, nor the people who run them. Also, while I am new to this sport, I am not new to competitve shooting. I have attended well over 100 CAS matches at upwards of 15 venues. I have also run, and been a part of running, several succesful events. I am well aware of what it takes to run a succeful match and all the headaches that go with it.
I went to my second match yesterday and boy was it different from my first. At the first match we were squaded with three ROs per squad, at least there were three on my squad. Everybody was very friendly and I was happy to be on a squad with three other guys I knew, at least in passing. The ROs were very friendly and helpful to a new shooter. The scenarios were very basic, but challenging enough to keep it interesting. There were not a lot of procedural traps, in fact I can think of none. The only thing that surprised me was the lack of movement on any of the scenarios. The match was very well organized and everybody involved was on the same page. By the end of the match, I had talked to everyone on the squad and it was a great time.
Match two was quite differrent. When I arrived, early, people were setting up the stages. It became clear early on that this match was not as well organized as my first. The people were very friendly but things did not run nearly as smooth. I soon learned that we would not be squaded and we would go through each stage at our own pace. The stages here were far more difficult, "interesting", than my first match. You really needed to watch the round counts, because there were a lot more moving targets involved. You didn't want to get caught short with a target flying by you. There was more diversity at this shoot. We even shot one stage indoors under low light conditions with head lights and flashing lights, It was a blast. There was one stage however that while intersting, to the say the least, could have been run much better. I did not think that the RO did a very good job of explaining it and he probably needed more help. All of the other ROs were very helpful and friendly. There was a lot of movement and cover was emphasized a lot more at all but the indoor stage. All in all, a very good match. I even shot it twice. One thing I did not like, however, was that because of how it was run, I was unable to recover much of my brass at all.
Conclusions: I am happy that I did not attend the second match as my first match. I think I would have been overwhelmed. There were a lot of new shooters at the second match and I am glad I had one under my belt. I think that squading is very beneficial to the new shooter. The Ro's soon learn how competent the shooter is, or isn't, and what, if any, safety issues to address. I was much more "comfortable" at the first match than at the second. It also lends itself more to a sence of commaradarie. I prefer squading for this reason.
Also, when shooting in a squad, the RO needs only to read the scenario once, and answer all questions at the same time. With the shotgun method, he needs to read it and answer questions many more times as new shooters arrive. On a complicated course of fire this can cause long wait times. In a squad people are assigned, or assume, duties like pasting targets and picking up brass. This lends itself to a much more efficiently run match.
While I am glad that my first match was not as challenging as the second, I think that style of match might become boring very quickly. There was not anything boring about any of the stages at the second match and, as my competence and confidence increase, I am sure that I will prefer this type of match. I will be getting more involved with my local club and hopefully will be able to assist with props and stage design.
One thing I did notice about about "round counts" at the second match is that it easy to write stages that give advantage to one division over another. Perhaps this was intentional or unintentional, I do not know. For me it really does not matter. I do think that that stage writers have to watch themselves when it comes to this sort of thing at least to avoid the appearance of favoring there own choice of weapon over another. At my first stage, there was a total of only 15 shots required, which at first glance seems simple enough for someone shooting CDP. The trick is that the stage designer wrote it such that you had to shoot six shots at three targets while moving to point B and shoot a falling plate that triggered two moving targets for a total of 9 rounds before moving on. The problem is that if you should miss or have a jamb, you will have to perform a second reload in order to complete the stage. I noticed this same type of thing on another stage and, at that one you had to shoot a total of eighten rounds which required me to perform a second mag change, regardless. This is not a critisism, merely an observation. In Cowboy action shooting I attended more than one match where it was obvoius that the person, or people, writing the stage, determined to give advatage to shooters using a pump shotgun over shooters using doubles by writing in a lot of odd round counts.
I went to my second match yesterday and boy was it different from my first. At the first match we were squaded with three ROs per squad, at least there were three on my squad. Everybody was very friendly and I was happy to be on a squad with three other guys I knew, at least in passing. The ROs were very friendly and helpful to a new shooter. The scenarios were very basic, but challenging enough to keep it interesting. There were not a lot of procedural traps, in fact I can think of none. The only thing that surprised me was the lack of movement on any of the scenarios. The match was very well organized and everybody involved was on the same page. By the end of the match, I had talked to everyone on the squad and it was a great time.
Match two was quite differrent. When I arrived, early, people were setting up the stages. It became clear early on that this match was not as well organized as my first. The people were very friendly but things did not run nearly as smooth. I soon learned that we would not be squaded and we would go through each stage at our own pace. The stages here were far more difficult, "interesting", than my first match. You really needed to watch the round counts, because there were a lot more moving targets involved. You didn't want to get caught short with a target flying by you. There was more diversity at this shoot. We even shot one stage indoors under low light conditions with head lights and flashing lights, It was a blast. There was one stage however that while intersting, to the say the least, could have been run much better. I did not think that the RO did a very good job of explaining it and he probably needed more help. All of the other ROs were very helpful and friendly. There was a lot of movement and cover was emphasized a lot more at all but the indoor stage. All in all, a very good match. I even shot it twice. One thing I did not like, however, was that because of how it was run, I was unable to recover much of my brass at all.
Conclusions: I am happy that I did not attend the second match as my first match. I think I would have been overwhelmed. There were a lot of new shooters at the second match and I am glad I had one under my belt. I think that squading is very beneficial to the new shooter. The Ro's soon learn how competent the shooter is, or isn't, and what, if any, safety issues to address. I was much more "comfortable" at the first match than at the second. It also lends itself more to a sence of commaradarie. I prefer squading for this reason.
Also, when shooting in a squad, the RO needs only to read the scenario once, and answer all questions at the same time. With the shotgun method, he needs to read it and answer questions many more times as new shooters arrive. On a complicated course of fire this can cause long wait times. In a squad people are assigned, or assume, duties like pasting targets and picking up brass. This lends itself to a much more efficiently run match.
While I am glad that my first match was not as challenging as the second, I think that style of match might become boring very quickly. There was not anything boring about any of the stages at the second match and, as my competence and confidence increase, I am sure that I will prefer this type of match. I will be getting more involved with my local club and hopefully will be able to assist with props and stage design.
One thing I did notice about about "round counts" at the second match is that it easy to write stages that give advantage to one division over another. Perhaps this was intentional or unintentional, I do not know. For me it really does not matter. I do think that that stage writers have to watch themselves when it comes to this sort of thing at least to avoid the appearance of favoring there own choice of weapon over another. At my first stage, there was a total of only 15 shots required, which at first glance seems simple enough for someone shooting CDP. The trick is that the stage designer wrote it such that you had to shoot six shots at three targets while moving to point B and shoot a falling plate that triggered two moving targets for a total of 9 rounds before moving on. The problem is that if you should miss or have a jamb, you will have to perform a second reload in order to complete the stage. I noticed this same type of thing on another stage and, at that one you had to shoot a total of eighten rounds which required me to perform a second mag change, regardless. This is not a critisism, merely an observation. In Cowboy action shooting I attended more than one match where it was obvoius that the person, or people, writing the stage, determined to give advatage to shooters using a pump shotgun over shooters using doubles by writing in a lot of odd round counts.
