latech15

Nope, Rigger - that was with AA's. Your post does honestly make me interested in trying the tac 12, but then I read the one about them not answering the phone and having a full mailbox and it beings back the old feelings. It is a shame. The open shotgun market is ready for a reliable option.

Sorry, apparently something changed and I don't know how to quote a post anymore. in response to Rigger's post - I can see where you would give them some slack as they are friends of yours. I understand that they have lives outside of their business. That is something that I would not take away from anybody. I can honestly tell you that when I got Jim on the phone, he had a real desire to help. He offered many possible solutions, all of which I deemed overboard for what I was willing to put up with. (keeping my shells in an ice chest filled with ice between stages etc). I was turned off by the unprofessional way they they conducted themselves and the unreliable manner in which the run performed. I am sure that they have worked out a lot of those details with a few more years in dealing with the platform and with the introduction of their own uppers and lowers. They are, no doubt, better than they were at it when I had my dealings with them. However, the "call back because i can't find a pencil/pen" comment, forever cemented them on the wrong list for me personally. If there were a better open shotgun solution, I would suggest it, but I don't know of a good mag fed shotgun option. "running" tends to have a different meaning for those mag fed shotgun guys than it does for everybody else. If they didn't have to disassemble it and the only hangups were cleared with one pogo stick and a few tap rack bang's they tend to think of it as a successful stage. I do not think that way. If I had to pick one now, dissident arms would be the one that I would pick. I know those guys and I have seen their guns run more than not. They are both solid dudes and I know they they would answer the phone and have a pencil handy when they did it.

I had an early 1919 from Firebird. Not only did the gun not run, the customer service was unacceptable. At that time, they were nearly impossible to get on the phone. Like, call for days and days and leave messages and never get a response from phone or email. One time after calling for days, Nancy actually told me to call back later because she couldn't find a pen to write anything down. I would stay as far away from them as possible.

There are a few differences that matter with receivers. I have seen a few features that I like but in the end don't "matter". Seekins has a set screw for tightening the upper and lower fit. That is nice, but the three that I really like are that they use a set screw to hold the safety detent spring in instead of using the grip itself. Same thing with the rear takedown detent. Knowing that those aren't going to go flying when you take the grip and the buttock off is helpful. They also use a screw to hold the bolt catch in instead of that silly roll pin that I hate so much. Those things are nice during assembly, but once you get it built, you really aren't changing those things that often. I'm sure that they're are others that have these options, I just know about Seekins having them. My 3g rifle is built on a PSA blem upper and lower and holds 1/2MOA with my distance load.

I also had a lot of fun at this year as well. The targets were easy to find and in the right proportion as far as the breakdown per gun. It is pretty difficult to come up with a criticism for the match as a whole, but the one thing that I noticed was the simplicity of the stages. I know that with natural terrain, options are not always easy, but it seemed like the stages were set up so that pretty much everybody had to run them exactly the same way. There were very few opportunities to vary your stage plan from what everybody else was doing. I would like to see that changed next year. Stage planning is as important as every other skill in shooting competition and this match took away the need for a plan. Just watch the guy in front of you and try to do the same thing only faster. Other than that, it was top notch. Thanks to Jim, the staff, and all of the sponsors - especially DSG for my awesome prize table pull.

amen!

A club that I shoot at uses conduit for legs and they slide down on a foot made out of rebar welded to a piece of angle iron. Due to it being round it can pivot and because it fits inside, it can be placed very close to another wall.

My open gun came with the original RTS mounted to one of the custom mounts that everybody was building when they first came out. I switched back to a full size Cmore and I now need the clamp part of the sight that was removed when it was mounted to the custom mount. Does anybody have a RTS 1st generation that you are using on a mount and aren't using the clamp? Cmore says they don't have any and all they can do is trade it in on a RTS2 for an additional $239.00. Thanks

Stick with either of the tried and true options that are out there. http://www.infinityfirearms.com http://www.ptrinity.com Both have GOOD reputations in the industry.

When I was there I assumed that everybody would feel the effects of the sun/wind on at least one stage. I know that my squad did on at least three stages. Bad enough that some targets simply couldn't be engaged. It appears from that video that your squad didn't experience the same issues in any of the stages. Would you agree?

Are you sure that it was their decision to leave benos, and not one that was imposed upon them?

I use a flip camera. One power button and one big red start/stop record button. Very easy to hand to someone and have them video you. I also use a contour hat cam and I have a go pro on a rubber legged tripod that can wrap and hold onto anything.

That's why you are my hero buddy. Keep kicking the asses of all of the nascar shirts. You are an inspiration to the rest of us overweight ugly jackasses.

So following your advice, for a guy like West Chandler, who is an awesome shooter who beats most of the guys with the big name gun companies on their shirts, needs to practice more to get better so he could get a big name sponsor? Lets assume for a second that a guy like West would even WANT to be sponsored by a bigger name than he currently has, IMO, the part that is missing from his game is not the shooting. It is the marketability. You (Jesse) are a good looking guy with (from the rumor mill) plenty of disposable income and a job that allows you to take time off and travel to lots of matches. Those things coupled with the DESIRE to be very visible. i.e.: lots of product, and technique videos, lots of match exposure, not to mention, the DESIRE to have a lot of names on your shirt, make up for the difference in your level of sponsorship vs West's. It makes sense that you would get more sponsors than a guy like that, but based upon your rise and West's, I hardly think that telling someone to practice and get better is good advice on how to get sponsored. It seems like you should be telling shooters to get a camera, get lots of FB/twitter followers and spend hours online growing your audience would be better advice to get sponsored.

That cracks me up. What part? Practice? No, just the insinuation that being a good shooter is the key to getting sponsored. I would venture a guess that a single-digit percentage of the sponsored shooters out there are sponsored for their shooting abilities above other very meaningful traits that they may have. Present company excluded, of course...

That cracks me up.

For the record, stage 11 was flawless as far as I'm concerned. All except the part about making the aforementioned gravitationally challenged individual run all the way down that hill! I've said my peace and I'll join the rubberneckers from here on out. Jeff Blackmon

Is that what your rant is? Because it sounds a lot more like someone accusing a well respected member of being a liar and 60 ROs plus a match director of conspiracy and fraud based on rumors and ignorance all while being too cowardly to bring it up in person. I was involved with setup for the match and was an RO on stage 11. I would be happy to answer any questions as best as I can. Please repost them for me so i don't have to search through 16 pages. Off the top of my head, setup for this match normally begins two weeks before the match with the RO shoot the weekend before the main match. The week leading up to the match is normally spent decorating and setting up non-stage related equipment. The stages are not changed in any way between the RO and main match. However, do to range restrictions this year, that was not possible. Half the stages had to be setup weeks before for ROs then torn back down. The target places were marked on the ground with spray paint and pictures were taken to ensure they would be correctly re-setup. This was certainly not ideal, but unavoidable due to range restrictions that were beyond the control of Texas Multi-Gun. Stage 1 was thrown out when it was brought up to the match director that some shooters had used the prop pistol for unintended targets and others were not allowed to do so. This was not properly described in the stage description which was the miscommunication. The rifle port on Stage 2 was never intended for using to shoot the falling steel, and no one should have been allowed to do it. There were always 10 headshot targets on Stage 6. No extra steel was added to Stage 8 (or any other stage). The hole in the wall of the shoot house on Stage 9 was never intended to be a port and should never have been used as one. I don't know anything about the charge line moving for Stage 10. I do know at least one person was DQ'ed for turning up range with their shotgun to dump it in the barrel, so it may have been a safety issue. The "minimal movement" on the barricade for Stage 12 as described (moving from the top of one position to the side of the next position) sounds within the stage rules. I wish I had thought of that. There were seven times the number of Tac Ops shooters as in each of the other division (combining the three in WWII with the 21 in Heavy). That's why there were seven times the number of STI pistols on the Tac Ops table than the other tables. The only problem brought up to the match staff was Stage 1, and that was dealt with properly. Maybe if shooters would voice their concerns to the staff and give them a chance to fix it instead of waiting to complain on the internet afterward then these situations could be averted. Jonathan Slayton As far as stage 1, if the stage gun was "not intended to be used on anything other than the two steel targets" don't you agree that it would have been helpful to put that in the WSB? Also, as you have seen from some of the videos posted, some shooters were allowed to "ground a safe rifle" on top of the barricade right where they had staged it prior to the stage starting. My squad was informed that we could not ground rifles there. Yet again, lets throw out what the WSB says and make up our own rules regardless of the impact that it makes on the overall scores. Stage 2 - Again, if the steel was not intended to have been shot form there, put it in the WSB. The WSB said that it had to be shot from the ports - not ports B and C. What you DO NOT do is allow the RO's to move steel around after a bunch of shooters had already shot it that way so that you couldn't see the steel from there and add caveats to the WSB after the match was underway. Stage 9 - The hole in the wall was specifically addressed in our walkthrough as a possible port that was perfectly fine to shoot through. You failed to address the fact that the forward charge line wasn't enforced for some of the shooters and they didn't have to use the hole in the wall because they were elbows deep in the first window shooting all of the paper from one position. Yet again, these things could have been addressed in a WSB. DQing a shooter from breaking the 180 isn't a safety issue. That is part of every match ever shot. You can't break the 180 period. You can't change the stage after it has been shot without reshooting the shooters who have already shot it. Stage 12 - If you wanted a minimum amount of movement, the minimum amount of movement should have been prescribed. I moved from a vertical wall to a step. It was a very small movement, but per the WSB, I could have moved less than that and still been within the rules. Either the RO's took it upon themselves to "fix" the problems on their stages without consulting the MD or RM, or they approved the changes. Neither of which are right, fair, or equitable for all shooters. I feel like we are beating a dead horse here. There is nothing that can be done at this point. A formal apology won't change anybody's feelings. I spoke to the RM while I was at the match and informed him of all of the items that I pointed out here and he told me that it was the first time that he had heard about most of them. I believed him then and I still believe that nobody had brought it up. My belief is that this was all caused by the mentality that "3 gun doesn't need all of the rules that USPSA has" You/We do. This is a great example of that. Stages get thrown out in USPSA, even at nationals, but not 7-8 out of 12.

I think that most of the changes to the stages have been addressed except a few. Stage 2 - the stage briefing said that the small steel plates on the left side of the berm had to be engaged through the ports. There was no specification that they be addressed through the back two ports and not the same port that you started out with your rifle on. I walked the stage on Thursday after watching RO's shoot pistol at that steel through the same port as the rifle. It was possible and even allowed per the WSB. By the time that I got to the stage on Friday, the farthest steel to the left had been moved further left so that you couldn't see it through that port and the RO told me that I couldn't shoot the steel through that port. That cost probably 5 seconds. Stage 3 - "Rumor" - I was told that more no shoots were added in front of all that steel on Friday than when the RO's shot. Stage 5 - "Rumor" - I was told that there were 10 of those head shot targets back there for the RO's (per the WSB) and there were only 9 back there when I shot it. There was still an extra target stand back there with broken off sticks still standing in it. Stage 9 - I talked to a person who shot through with the RO's who told me that they both had no knowledge of a forward charge line in the shoot house, and that they were allowed to shoot the pistol with their rifle in their other hand. Either of those two things could attribute to the superhuman times. I shot it in 20 seconds and don't know where I could have made up any time. I would guess that the pro's might have been able to shoot it under the same rules as me and maybe shaved 2-3 seconds off of it.....not 5-6. Stage 10 - The prop gun was not there when the RO's shot. It was right in the way of what would have been a shooting position for me had it not been there when I shot. Stage 12 - I guess I am one of the guys who got away with little movement. I told the RO what I was planning and he said that it had to move more than that. I asked where in the WSB it was stated that the "different position" had to be a minimum distance away from the first position. Another RO came up and agreed with me that a move from holding the rifle against one of the vertical portions of the step vs the flat portion was indeed a different position and that is how I shot it. It was probably about an inch of actual movement. My issues are two fold - Moving things around after some people have shot it one way making it easier or harder for a different group is wrong. Allowing RO's to add caveats into and out of the WSB's is another one altogether. I experienced both, I shot some stages easier than some others and some harder. I know that all the IF's in the world aren't worth the paper that they are written on, but as I see it, If we had all been on equal ground, I would have ended up about $1k better off at the prize table. That is nothing to scoff at. I know that there is the mentality within the 3-gun community that the rule books in USPSA are way too thick and that outlaw 3-gun is way better. I disagree wholeheartedly (from a strictly rules standpoint). The USPSA rule book may be thick, but it addressed nearly every question that could arise. Had we been following those rules, 7 of the 12 stages should have been thrown out. 7 out of 12 is too many. I don't know if it is the fault of the MD, the RO's or whose so I won't address that. What I will say is that there were a lot of RO's out there working really hard all weekend so that I could have fun this weekend. I did have fun and I will come back to this match. I met a lot of really, really good guys this weekend and I don't think that any of the changes that were made were made with a malicious intent. I think that they were made to make the match better, unfortunately, the changes that were made created vast differences in scoring opportunities. Better communication to the RO's to make sure that they followed the WSB's to the letter, and that nothing was removed or added could have eliminated all of the headache. I would like to also join the pile on in thanking STI. I have never seen the likes of what they brought to a prize table - My guess would be somewhere int he neighborhood of 12-15 complete guns and maybe another 30 or so frame and slide kits with another pile of individual frames and slides. Wow guys, Thanks a million. DPMS, Seekins, Nightforce, Sig, and others all made significant contributions to the tables and all deserve a great thank you from us all. Thanks, Jeff Blackmon

There are those who would love to have a gun make it a few thousand rounds before it failed.

Sorry, I have t checked back in a while. That is yards.

I can keep my open gun inside 4" at 50 offhand. Best I have ever done at 50 with irons is about 6" offhand. I'm sure both guns are way better than that off bags or a ransom rest.

Well, I finally hard a match where I wasn't playing with a different gun, trying out new mags, testing various loads, etc. Everything ran and worked the way it was supposed to. I came out with a match win, but I am interested in hearing from some of you where you see some areas for improvement. Let me have it.

You don't mean that production has turned into an equipment race………surely not.