kurtm

Hmmmm.......best stage ever!! Multiple target engagements, very high round count, all about accuracy. From box A engage the 4 spinners, they all must be spinning to count AND must be spinning in opposite direction of the one next to it. We are going to put a cardboard cutout of a saguaro cactus next to the box so you "know" we put a lot of thought into the stage.......yep gotta love them gimmick targets!

When does super senior start???

STI 2011s for play, 1911s in 45 ACP for ....well...... the other play.

I'm not so sure that if you know your not going past 200 yds that a nice 1-4X wouldn't fit the bill nicely, and save a lot of bank as well. Don't discount some of the fine Burris offerings like their 1-5 XTR and others.

That's kinda what I was alluding to. Sure ..wink wink....you can do anything you want! I was thinking more of the old type of free style, like if you didn't want to run way up there you could take the rifle targets from here. If your shotgun/ rifle goes down you can keep going with your pistol, if you wanna chance the real tight no shoot/ head shot from here it could save 3-4 seconds, or you can run over there and it becomes wide open ...kind of thing.

Ahem .....3GN started around 2011 or so, just saying.

Not sure I agree. There have been some very good 3-gun matches long after I started. I'd say the best matches in 3-gun we're in the mid 2000s up to around 2012. After that, the bigger/better/round count designs started to take over. Along with this stage design fell and the "free style" decision making types of stages started to disappear. Along came the run to box a shoot, run to box b shoot.....etc. that took out some of the fun as well. I started I. 1992 and I really didn't see a decline untill 2011.

What's an @kurtm???? When M.D.s quit designing stages around What facet of shooting do I want to test with this stage/ scenario based stages, and started thinking Round Count was king was when it started to slide. Anymore I see most 3-gun matches as, " hey to be better and bigger" we need stupid amounts for rounds. Stages designs that have this as their base......go scatter out a bunch of targets.....make it about 50 rounds of pistol, 30 rounds of shotgun and 70 rounds of rifle. Bigger is better! Well now reset raised it's timely head so these same M.D.s said we need a target system to suck up a bunch of rounds and won't need much reset ......hence crap targets like spinners, polish ate racks etc. And the idea of carrying all 3 guns on you came in vogue too, when would you ever sling a rifle to shoot a shotgun???? Once again no thought to what you want to test, just get that round count up and scatter a bunch of crap out there.

Taran and TTI are a great company. I have never heard of them screwing anyone over and they always seem to go out of their way to do a little extra for their customers. I can't speak as to why they aren't answering your calls and emails, nor am I going to try, but you will get a great product which they stand behind. I hope they get this all ironed out for you.

Hmmm.....the plot thickens a bit. 10.3.2 When a match disqualification is issued, the Range Officer must record the reasons for the disqualification, and the time and date of the incident, on the competitor's score sheet5, and the range master must be notified as soon as possible.....there is no mention of erasing the competitor! 10.3.3 states Scores for a competitor who has received a match disqualification must not be deleted until the time limit prescribed in rule 11.3.1 has passed. This is the only place scores being deleted is mentioned in the entire D.Q. section of USPSA rules. and nowhere can I find anything that says the scores must be deleted. I think what we are starting to see is a bunch of "pseudo rules" being assumed because it was probably a pain to keep them in, in the score keeping program. the rules DO NOT state that the scores be removed. They certainly shouldn't be included in overall match placement, but there is no RULE that mandates they disappear. So it appears that this was not meant to "teach a lesson", or to make a D.Q. painful, or even to force safety to the forefront of the competitors thinking. it was just a quick and easy way for the scoring to be done.

And with you last statement, we now know where the hubris resides.......but I digress.....when the Puffer Fish inflates and become all spikey, was it designed emulating yourself? BTW your welcome to stay.

Hubris: (in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis. Are you comparing yourself to the God's? If so, I've got some questions about your design of the Puffer Fish.

It was a U.S.P.S.A. local pistol match. If I rewrote the rules, you would like them! If I got more shooters the wrong way I would not like the way you would get new shooters. I never said relax the safety rules, enforce them just like we do now. How does erasing them teach anything?? Stopping them, telling them why, and not letting them continue is the teaching moment.

Philosophical question. Makes us examine the root of our rules and see if they still make sense or not. A great example of a philosophical debate that did end up in a change was allowing red dot sights into limited. Mike Pinto and I asked the question of should they be allowed. Everyone responded with a resounding NO.....because anything with glass is an optic! After seeing that this was a case of "well that's the way it always has been, we decided to do it at our club matches anyway, and see. Two short years latter U.S.P.S.A. contacted us to ask how it was going. Since we kept the data on how much our limited division grew, and how many new shooters it attracted, they made the change as well....and then the rest of the 3-gun world followed suit. Wanna know about a philosophical debate about target size.....Trapr and I proposed the 4 M O.A. idea, and low and behold it caught on, just because of a debate. Before everything was a 10" plate no matter how far away....because that was what always had been done. I am not wedded to this particular debate per see, but I was asked by several new shooters at our local club after two of them D.Q.ed at their very first match 3/4 of the way through. Their crime?? Moving their spare EMPTY HOLSTERED pistol off of the top of their score cards in the bag when asked for them from the R.O. . Handling a pistol outside of the safety area! Funny part the R.O. stood there and watched them dig in the bag for the score sheets and never said a word untill...your D.Q.ed. They both just wanted to know how they did on what they shot. Both L.E. and both won't be back. So here in lies the question.

I was vague on what keeping your points would mean on purpose to see where the debate would go. No I don't feel that if you D.Q. you get to win the match, I just feel that you shouldn't become invisible! I agree Denise, that people still break the law and it is retroactive......but a conviction doesn't erase the person's history from the world. I.E. there are several record holders in sports that committed felonies, and yet if you look up in the record book they are still listed.