xsrdx

This is a subject that should be near and dear to all involved in US practical shooting. Mash here to view the organized effort working to ensure the 94 AW ban goes the way of the DoDo: http://www.awbansunset.com (Edited by xsrdx at 4:30 pm on Mar. 7, 2003) (Edited by xsrdx at 4:31 pm on Mar. 7, 2003)

KURTM, et al- speaking of cool yooniforms, check out the sano new USMC Combat Utility outfit - replete with accessory pockets for knee and elbow pads, not to mention that wicked computer-generated 3D camo. These won't get you kicked out, since you'll be INVISIBLE. Very cool outfit, based on a close personal examination. The Marines have it going on. Word is the Army is soon upgrading its BDU also, wait out.... <A HREF="http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/mcub/utility/index.html">USMC Combat Utility Uniform</A>

HA!

I used to try to reshoot blown classifiers, but I've come to believe the classification system works as designed. It's not built to recognize your "on my best day" ability -it's built to reflect average performance. The truth is, a less than optimal classifier is a reflection of ability, since the better you get, the more consistent you become. Taking the bad scores out paints a distorted picture of "true" ability. If I screw up a classifier, it's for a reason - shooting it over again and doing better won't make it go away. I view the classifiers as a heads-up measure of my ability on any given day, not a system to measure the best performance I'm capable of.

Uh, well, my STI is half plastic too. The Glock has more plastic than your STI - I should have written "on the basis of relative polymer content" since most pistols have some plastic parts these days. Your comment made it sound like your STI was too cool to throw in the mud, but your Glock was a POS that somehow deserved it. Taking care of your tools is just insurance, assuming it doesn't devolve into "worship". Your subtitle says it all - a means to an end. If you want to achieve the end, take care of the means to do so. I agree with you to a point, although I'm guilty of never putting dirty guns in the safe. That might be worship, but I call it proper maintenance. Wear and tear adds character, no doubt. Our local GMs gun looks like he shoots it a lot - no surprise there.

Would I dump my STI in the mud deliberately? Hell no. Who cares about a Glock? Big deal... You can't rant, and then discriminate on the basis of polymer content. I take care of my guns, they take care of me. Quid Pro Quo.

Tom, Your national % should be about 78%. Looks like A class might be in your future... I spoke with you Sunday about your magwell, just prior to my 8" plate meltdown on stage 3. At least I didn't punt the classifier. -Craig

I think horrible traffic is near universal in the world today. Where is everybody going? 100 years ago, nobody left their house for DAYS. Today, nobody stays home for more than 10 minutes it seems. Any time of day, any day of the week, traffic in the DC area is perpetual. Some of it is people going to work, some are travelers passing through. But who are all the people out driving around at 3PM on a Tuesday? Kids should be in school, lunch hour has passed, and adults with jobs should be working somewhere besides IN THEIR CAR. So why are there just as many people driving around? Do these people not have jobs? Are all of them going to appointments? Screwing off? No wonder productivity is going down the tubes, everybody in America is driving around instead of working.

Unfortunately, we have ourselves to blame for this cr*p. The jaded American consumer has so much of everything, companies that want to sell anything are forced to change product lines weekly to appeal to whatever the new "growth" demographic happens to be. Sticking with a proven design will usually get you left in the lurch, as trend conscious, media saturated consumers rush to snap up the latest new and improved gizmo. It's all BS of course, just like perpetual "growth". Why do companies have to "grow" to be successful? What the he** is wrong with picking a niche and serving it well and faithfully, without "growing" 20% annually until you merger and acquire your way into bankruptcy. /Rant mode off. Capitalism beats the alternatives, but it doesn't always make sense.

Many of us prefer 3 gun, and came to 3 gun, because it is primarily hard men shooting real guns. We need not be ashamed of that. And that essential truth (Thanks Joe - the COL would agree!) is probably what limits the growth potential for 3 Gun. It's not a PC sport, it's tough to hide the combative nature of the game behind a veneer of civility, like IPSC and it's amoeba targets. It's equipment intensive, requiring 3 full sets of gear for three entirely different firearms. It can get very expensive, especially for open class competitors. Training can be difficult, not everybody has access to range facilities that allow them to practice all three disciplines under match type conditions. It takes considerable dedication to be competitive - not unlike USPSA pistol, but with the added complexity of the two additional guns, each requiring a unique and specialized skill set. For those reasons, along with the lack of unity between the "tactical" and USPSA communities, 3 Gun will remain relatively small compared to "friendlier" shooting sports like Cowboy Action and Sporting Clays, or the pistol components of IDPA and USPSA.

We are conducting a shooting competition, not a re-enactment or procurement test You can pretend the game defines reality, or let reality define the game. Limited class pistols and shotguns, and scoped semiauto/ auto rifles, are the standard arms for law enforcement and military operators. That's not by accident, nor is it strictly a function of cost. Again - to many that means nothing, since all we're doing is gaming. To some, the distinction is important. This has devolved into a circular discussion - 3 classes should be the standard, ala SMM3G and RM3G rules. Open, Modified aka Tactical, and Limited. The details are up to the match director regarding OAL, comps, bipods, capacity, etc. IPSC won't make that change, and that's one of the reasons IPSC 3 Gun will continue to be less attractive than the "tactical" alternatives like the Viking3G, SMM3G, and the Raton match.

that happens to be my OPEN CLASS PARA ORDNANCE 9X23 RACE GUN Huh? I hear those race guns are notoriously reliable after you drag them through the mud and smack them against a door frame or brick wall a few times on the way to a gunfight. No doubt your open gun is a formidable pistol, but for the purpose of this discussion it isn't "tactical" no matter how broad the interpretation. I think the thread makes clear the intent behind a tactical or modified class. Not everybody gets it, and maybe that's the point.

Mixed/Tactical. Rifles, comps only as per Limited rule. One optic of the shooters choice. No back up red dots, backup irons allowed. Shotgun and handgun as per the Limited rules. This class could be called "Rifle Modified" or similar to avoid use of the dreaded "T" word. Agree that "tactical" is overused and ill defined, thus open to interpretation. Websters sez Tactical,adj 1. Of or pertaining to tactics, esp. military tactics 2. characterized by skillful tactics or by adroit maneuvering, technique or procedure. . No mention of comps, optics or bipods though, so no help there... Given that IPSC/USPSA has 5 or 6 pistol classes (Open, Standard, Limited, Production, L10, Modified, blah blah blah) it wouldn't seem that tough to add another "Rifle Modified" Division for 3 gun. But that's just me.

and issue shotguns like the M590, M500, or the 870. Don't forget the recently adopted joint service combat shotgun, AKA Benelli XM1014/M4- essentially a gas operated M1S90 with a rail. And what of the law enforcement community? Isn't their gear "tactical"? If you don't like tactical class, don't shoot in it. USPSA has already rejected the idea because of the recognition that IPSC is a game, nothing more or less. A tactical class is an oblique admission that small arms can be employed as weapons, a fact that was obvious to the folks that started SOF 3 gun but one that USPSA isn't interested in discussing. A tactical class provides people that care about such issues a place to compete with guns that are configured in ways that are useful in demanding "tactical" environments. That means they are effective but durable - the tradeoff is typically that simple. What's the best gear you can get away with that won't break, fall off, run out of power, fog up, or otherwise fail when you need it most. Basically, tactical is limited class with durable rifle optics allowed. That configuration reflects 99% of weapons employed by the current crop of LEA SRT and military special operations units, minus the night vision, combat ID, flashlights and lasers. To many, that's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it any less realistic.

Competing in USPSA competition will help me perform better at my day job My point was simply that I prefer your rules to USPSA 3 Gun rules. Certainly any competition is going to improve performance at some level. Your rules, and others that allow otherwise limited shooters to run optics on the rifle, are more appropriate for folks that for whatever reason, may wish to utilize as issued, or similar, gear.

Civilian engineers have always been the critical element in small arms development - military planners know what they want, but depend on civilian expertise to get it done. Civilians developed the B2, M1 Abrams and nuclear weapons too, but it's tough to argue those items are anything but military in nature. M1, AR15/M16, M1911, M14 - all were developed, by civilians, in response to or in anticipation of a military requirement. They have been product-improved by competition, but unless demand is high, innovations often get shelved. The relationship between competition and military/LE requirements has been a two-way street, one could argue competition begets improvement, but most developers/manufacturers are looking at improvement equating to increase military/LE sales - so who is really driving the train? Follow the money - small arms development has been driven almost entirely by military requirements and funding, certainly since Alexander hoisted his first Pike.

current military/LE equipment in the match context? IMO that's the most appropriate definition of a tactical class. The catch becomes defining "current military/LE equipment", thus the nefarious "approved configurations" list.

Leupold is great, ACOG fine, US Optics Gay, Holosight fast . Optima broken or distorted at the OBJ. LOL Kyle, well said. As for what consitutes "Tactickle" - IIRC the original SOF intent regarding optics, as Kurt pointed out, was "adopted for military use" - somewhere, anywhere. If it's in rotation with a recognized professional military force, it's legal. Kyle points out that truly tactical operators have to balance utility with durability, otherwise they are stuck with dead weight, or worse, casualties or a failed mission. The "tactical" class is designed to recognize and reward selection of what is necessarily a slightly compromised setup. USPSA rules don't allow a "tactical operator" to compete with issue gear and be competitive - nobody on the HRT or in the SF DET is going to carry a wide body red dot 38Super, or a 5ft SGN, to work. So the "cutting edge" becomes what works best for the GAME, which is fine, but we can't pretend that standard necessarily applies to combat weaponcraft. A drop test or hammer whack would certainly separate the wheat from the chaff, but the "adopted for military use" criteria remains a valid one.

MB, I believe they intend to run a limited-iron, limited- scoped rifle, open and he-man class. Except for "he-man", identical to SMM3G classes. Differs from USPSA/IPSC in allowing limited shooters to run a single optic, "tactical" scoped rifle. VNG or Kurt plz correct me if I've misrepresented. Also, the website should be up soon to clarify the rules.

Preban HK versions are typically $900-$1200, and the newer post ban guns can be had for $800-$1000 depending on condition. New retail I think they are around $1200. Ballpark used anything under $1000 is probably reasonable if the gun is 95+%.

I stick with my nearly stock G35 because it does so many things well - it's not picky about magazines, it runs all the time without special attention, it shoots straight and I'm used to the trigger. I don't mind not shooting lead bullets, that way I spend less time cleaning. Could I shoot better with a 2011? Probably- if one landed in my lap that functioned perfectly with 10 flawlessly functioning hi caps, I wouldn't turn it down. But I don't have the energy, or the patience, yet to pursue running an S_I in Limited. My perception is it's a lot of work, assembling mags and then hoping you bought the right stuff and that everything works together with the ammo you use. Obviously, people do it all the time without a full time gunsmith, but for now it seems like more effort than it's worth. At some point, I may decide it's necessary but for now I beat enough of them (and lose to them as well!) that I'm satisified I have the right gear. The component that needs work is between my ears.

I know Bruce Piatt won, but does anybody have complete results for this event yet? Thanks in advance!

tip up/ tip down carry. Should read right/left handed carry, as DT already pointed out.

SL- Spyderco uses metal clips now, on most models you can move them for tip up/ tip down carry. My recommendation for BM and Spyderco is based primarily on cost vs. quality of materials - both companies do a great job of providing exceptional value in blade steel, come with a razor sharp factory edge (not always the case with production knives) and generally exhibit tight quality control in the locking mechanisms and blade pivot, two areas that are critical to safe, reliable performance over time. Nothing wrong with Kershaw, CRKT, or Camillus, but IMO they are not, price being equal, competitive with BM or Spyderco folders. Let us know what you decide!

SL- There are great places to buy knives online - cheap - but it's always best to see/touch/feel it before you buy it if you're not sure of what you need. Take a look at Spyderco and Benchmade offerings, both companies offer top shelf knives at reasonable prices, in a variety of configurations, and you can see them at most higher end sporting goods stores. For a bigger, updated version of your Buck, the Benchmade 710 Axis folder is a good place to start looking. If you don't want to spend that much, the Spyderco Endura is among the best values in folders, along with the Benchmade 551 Griptilian, another great sub $100 folder. BladeForums, linked in my previous post, is a great source for info on all things edged.