kellyn

Never saw it as I was over at Leupold Tactical. That scope must have been over a Leupold Central Command. It will be available with either a duplex or German #4.

Several things on the Leupold front: 1) The red dot in the CQBSS is dramatically improved. It is now a donut which looks like a donut at 1.1X but opens up at higher magnifications so the H27 reticle is more usable. 2) The new VX R line was introduced. They are variables with a daylight visible "firedot" in the reticle. The 1.25-4X would make an excellent starter scope for 3 gun. I think they will be in the $500 range. 3) The brightness of the CMR2 reticle is also improved over past models. 4) The CMR2 is going to available in the CQ/T which will make it a substantially more competitive 3 gun scope than the CQ/T with the cirlce dot reticle. 5) The HAMR was introduced. It is a fixed 4X with CMR2 reticle with a Deltapoint on top. I don't see as much of a 3 gun application for the HAMR although I am sure they will be used. 6) The 3.5-25X made its debut but don't expect any out for retail anytime soon.

The Leupold HAMR.

There are a lot of accurate barrels out there. One thing that I can say about JP barrels is above and beyond their accuracy, they LAST a long time. Daniel Horner had about 20K through a JP and it still shot great (I believe it was close to or under 1/2 MOA) when they put it in a machine rest and shot it at 300 meters. I have a JP barrel from 2003 that has untold MANY thousands of rounds through it and it still shoots great. I have also wore out 2 Douglas barrels at about 5000 rounds. Why?? Is it the cryo? The Wlyde chamber? Does John sacrifice a cat for each barrel? I don't know ... but I do know they last.

Good call!

In a 3 gun match, if you have switched to your BUIS, it is already over.

What divisions are recognized? Do Limited allow 1X sights?

I'm not running the Turkey Plex reticle which leaves a lot to be desired. I am running a circle dot reticle which I believe is available from the Custom Shop. I think there is some pressure to improve the reticle in the Pris. I should have more info after the SHOT show.

+1 with Kurt. If your gun shoots them, then go for it. I shot 69 Noslers for a long time. It was an excellent bullet in all of my AR barrels. I've found the Hornady 68s and Sierra 69s to be more barrel sensitive, accurate in some barrels, not in others. 69s are a compromise. They don't shoot as flat as 55s and don't pack quite the wallop or wind resistance of 75/77s. But they are a good compromise nonetheless. I believe Raine won the 2009 ERC with 69 Lapuas.

Trapr, go full IPSC: Open and Standard! Tactical rifle makes a lot less sense when it is just a rifle match and not a 3 gun.

I maintained my rifles FAR better back then. Cleaned them after every shooting session. What a maroon! I did not mean that the rifles blew up or that the receivers cracked. But on those National Match M14s at the end of every shooting session: bedding would croak, gas systems would lose their mojo and need replacement etc. etc. You don't need the accuracy of a National Match M14 for most 3 gun but it would be nice and to maintain that level of accuracy takes some armory love.

I assume we are talking heavy metal iron and not scope. The cool thing about this division is that there is no dominant rifle. AR10s, FALs, and M1As are all competitive. I don't think the hard kicking/trigger from hell HK91 is competitive though. I think FALs point the best and have the best overall handling characteristics. They also have the worst triggers of the 3 and are probably the least accurate as a system although all mine seem to shoot really well with good bullets. The triggers can be improved but they will never even be close to a JP LPR07. If you get a FAL, get the Hampton lower from DSA which has an M16A2 rear sight in it which cures one of the stock FALs curses: the rear sight. And you get an adjustable gas system. M1As have great sights, recoil the least (due to their light bolt), and have good triggers. M1As give you lots of sight radius which is nice. Plus like the FAL, the sights are close to the bore. Again, like the FAL, the mag change is slower than a AR10. I believe M1As tend to shoot themselves apart faster than the other 2 and are the least durable over the long haul. I shot 2 M14s into oblivion as a junior highpower shooter, something I have never done with a FAL. AR10s have the best controls (particularly the trigger), definitely the fastest mag change, and are easiest to scope. AR10s should be consistently the most accurate but it seems many an AR10 is less than 100% reliable. If I was getting an AR10 for 3 gun, I would ONLY get the JP LPR07, which is probably the best heavy metal rifle, all said and done. In my experience, FALs with short barrels (16 in) are more reliable than short barreled M1As and AR10s. But that is not so with full sized rifles.

As long as you don't monopod with cinched mags +1 on that.

And, yes, you must have facial hair to shoot irons. Facial hair allows the shooter to build a consistent check or spot weld. Any facial hair will do: the goatee, the Piatt (which will make you more accurate), closely followed by the Puente or even the pornstache. Robby Johnson never won a Nationals with irons as he has no facial hair. You cannot get there on mere talent alone.

Wow, what a thread. Since my name is being bandied about I thought I would jump in. When shooting irons, I shot the same rifle at many a USPSA Nationals and the European Rifle Championship so it has been 2nd place a lot! I use an LMT detach rear sight with a custom same plane aperture. I don't know the size of the apertures but they are both smaller than their A2 counterparts. I just picked the size by trial and error with the help of Derrick Martin. As for the front sight, I use the dreaded JP Globe front sight mounted just behind the comp. Yes, John did give it to me but I would not run it had I not thought it a better system. I only use the provided post front sight and not the aperture front sights, which I feel are only good for round targets. I like the JP globe as I think it provides more protection for skinny front posts. I have bent several unprotected skinny front posts (with the standard A2 front sight base) but never had one inside the globe break or bend. I also use the globe itself as a huge front sight for close range targets. The globe is easier to catch on tight ports and requires some care but I have never had it come off although I have hit it on stuff. HOWEVER, I had to get my globe front sight pinned as it would occasionally slip and I would lose zero. Since doing that several years ago, I have never had an issue. As for zeroing the iron sight rifle. I think Kurt, Trapr and Robby Johnson are correct, a 300 meter zero is the way to go. And the ONLY way to get a 300 meter zero is to shoot at 300 meters. I used to run a 250 yard zero which is better than the 300 m zero INSIDE of 250 but starts to get wobbly past 250 as you are holding over stuff This is ESPECIALLY true on paper targets at 300 meters. The Euro Rifle Championships convinced me of the value of the 300 m zero (I am slower than my Team America team mates). As for ammo, I think the iron sight rifle really can benefit from shooting lighter bullets which have flatter trajectories. This matters little when shooting a magnified optic, particularly those with BDCs but you want the path of the bullet to be as close to the tip of the front sight as possible, so in the future I would shoot 50-55 grain bullets FAST if running irons. Of course, that rifle now has a Leupold Prismatic on it. Which by the way, crushed an Eotech yesterday when shooting drills at plates. The clarity of the Pris was far superior to that of the Eotech and made hitting the plates much easier.

I don't shoot squared up with a long gun. Eric Lund and Matt Burkett are the only ones who leap to mind who do. I like the length of the A2 stock and run collapsible stocks fully or nearly fully extended. FOR ME squared up seems slower and adds tension to the upper part of my left arm and upper left back. I also feel like I am grasping for the foreend when squard up. It is easier to get further out on the handguard when slightly bladed. I also feel that I get a lot more recoil control especially with the shotgun when shooting from a slightly bladed stance. You get more body weight behind the shotgun when bladed and allow the legs to work as better shock absorbers. Finally , I feel that it is easier to move out of a slightly bladed stance as opposed to a squared up one.

Note it is $oldier of Fortune not Soldier of Fortune.

Yup, I have to throw the flag in on that one. I don't have money for a nice optic that has crisp 1x. It is more accurate for me in Open to tilt the rifle 30 degrees instead of figuring out the difference between the two sight pictures I get in "un-true" 1x. Also, Clint Upchurch uses two optics in open IIRC and he's been schooling people regularly in that division. (I now have a Burris XTR & offset Primary Arms red-dot but before, I had a Trijicon TA31F - one day, I might go back to the ACOG and get a TA11 like he runs) Flag away! We aren't talking about secondary red dots (which I happen to use when shooting Open rifle), we are talking about side mounted irons which is a different animal. I like a secondary red dot on an Open rifle. At Texas State Carbine, I used a Deltapoint for over 1/2 the shots in the match! But even then I will be the first to admit that secondary red dots are not essential on an Open class rifle (See European Rifle Championship scores). All of the side mounted irons that I have ever seen are much cruder sights than a JPoint or Deltapoint. You guys are winning this argument though. At Rio Salado's monthly match today there was a whole host of rifles with side mounted irons. And not everyone in that stable shoots a 1X, all the Leupold guys generally shoot a 1.5X-5X.

That is a pretty good reason as opposed to buying a new scope. I got my side irons when shooting an ACOG 3.5X which I just could not shoot fast up close, unlike Mr. Iguana vision Kurt Miller. That being said, the real answer, for me anyway, is a low powered variable. My ultimate point is that side irons are not generally necessary and are defintely not needed to be successful.

Great vid. Great shooting with ya bud. That Team Noveske sure has a serious sound track.

I would be careful not to make blanket statements. I think Kelly is probably faster with his optic than most of us with either irons or a dot. Along this line of thought, which major Tactical 3 Gun Competitor uses the side mounted irons? Daniel Horner? No. Taran Butler? No. Dave Neth? No. Robby Johnson? No. Tony Holmes? No. Bruce Piatt? No. Myself? No. (and I've tried them). Rob Romero? No. Eric Lund? No. Bennie Cooley (the true rifle genius)? No. Adam Popplewell? No. Bennie Hill? No. Ty Gentry? No. Kurt Miller? No. Kyle Lamb? No. Raine Peltovski in Open simply relies on a Swaro 1-6. No side mounted irons or RDS. That is a pretty good stable of practical rifle shooters who feel no need to place side mounted irons. Hmmm. Maybe you don't need them. That being said, if YOU think that they help YOUR performance, then slap them on your rifle, ZERO them and get rolling. Prove the rest of us wrong.

Get thee to the search function. This has been answered and argued about for years now. But the answer is simple, first there is no "perfect" optic. Second, tactical division in every major 3 gun match is won with a low powered variable.

I for one don't care for the side iron sights. I would rather just use my primary optic.

Stage design can mitigate this single stack vs. production 9mm issue. That being said, I don't know that I would gear a 3 gun stage around the 1911 single stack.

You will get a lot of complaints with the 10+1 rule for pistols. Most shooters don't have 10 round mags. They have Glocks etc. with a higher capacity. They may be confused as to why they can't fully load their magazines. A Glock 17 ain't a game gun. I would not run USPSA Tactical Rules as you are making everyone shoot a .40 hi cap. I'd go outlaw multigun, lose the power factor, and let the masses shoot 9mms.