SinistralRifleman
-
Posts
1,707 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by SinistralRifleman
-
-
Two problems I see are:
1) most people simply don't own WW2 design or earlier shotguns, while they may own a 1911 and a Garand. Limiting it to any pump action really wouldn't be fair as both lawmen (Charles Askins) and criminals (Dillinger gang) used Browning Auto 5s and Remington Model 11s. I recall Charles Askins used a Model 11 with a 10 shot extended tube.
2) For match efficiency round count would need to be cut in half
I think a rifle/pistol WW2 themed stand alone match would be easier to run than including shotgun. Also with stages designed specifically for WW2 guns it would be much easier match efficiency wise.
-
The last couple posts seemed to miss the point of what I was saying
There are plenty of folks running safe and successful Multigun stages with all 3 systems. Some even add a couple of match supplied pick-up guns. I shot a stage at the '09 Iron Man where I used my rifle, a thompson smg, an MP5, my shotgun and finished with my pistol (finally). I had a great time shooting the stage. It's the kind of stage that I expect from the Ironman Team. That said, it's not everybody's cup of joe, but then no one match is.
As I posted earlier Ironman stages are good with all 3 guns because we actually shoot 30-40 rounds out of each.
I am merely sick of stages that are speed drills for clearing and throwing guns in buckets after shooting less than 10 rounds through each.
I'd actually enjoy a match with 4 Ironman length stages more than something with 8-10 stages of lower round count.
I love 3-gun stages, it actually gets your blood pumping. But, I would love to see more 4-5 gun stages :. I paid the same match fee as everyone else and the more shooting I get to do, the more fun I'm having.
So what if to get that 5 gun stage you shoot 6 rounds or less out of each gun? That's what I'm getting at, what is the point of putting so many guns on one stage if we hardly shoot them?
-
If you are talking about the intregrated model I do not thing there are many of those out yet. They only work with a Benelli since you have to have the gas system in place for any other system.
If people are reporting the need for tuning to work with Benellis with the non-integrated model, I really wonder how much work is required to make it worth with that much extra weight on it.
-
BTW is anyone using the 4 full length rotating tube model or just the ones that screw on to the end of the gun? That one looks the most interesting to me.
-
As to what stage designers will and will not do, they end up doing all sorts of things and the ones who do it the best pay attention to competitor feedback. IMO the easy way to deal with the higher capacity of the XRail and Saigas is to have stages where you shoot bird, slugs and buck well mixed upon the stage. Sure you can load in order but that only works well provided you do not miss.
It's been a while since I looked at this thread, so sorry for dragging this back up...
If people with tec-loaders, X-rails, or Saigas are all competing in a different division than regular tube feds, why the need to design stages to deliberately sabotage the advantage/fun of using that equipment?
For years and years stage design was such that it encouraged people to develop and use this stuff, and now that its on the field we want to design stages to screw with it just for the sake of doing so? I just don't get it.
"Safety" is often used as a reason here as to why not to do particular things in stage design; the more select loading you're having people do the more possible its going to be for them to shoot the wrong target with a slug. And lets hope its not in the air at a flying clay. Distinctive engagement points for slugs at the start or end of a stage go a long way to reducing this potential.
-
Once I brought no light at all, relying only on the faint ambient light level and the Tritium sights of my Glock 27 carry gun... I won the match
-
1) Practical shooting is about solving problems. I see value in testing the competitor's ability to adapt to equipment limitations such as being handed a flashlight they have never used before and using it to clear a dark house.
2) A few 3-gunners may indeed run weapon-mounted lights routinely, but the vast majority do not. If we allowed competitors to use their own lights, there was a risk that people would have been futzing around with Rube Goldberg contraptions for securing lights to their hats, arms, pistols etc. This can create a real safety concern, with duct tape coming off at the wrong moment, pistol/flashlight combos not fitting in holsters properly and so on.
A simple rule of it must be on your gun the whole match if you want to use it in the dark house would address those concerns.
3 Gunners often don't have lights on their guns because 1) it is rarely required, and 2) when it is they can't use their own.
If this is PRACTICAL shooting, it doesn't get much more practical than having a light on your pistol/rifle/shotgun
In this case, the dark house was a pretty small part of the whole stage, and a weapon-mounted light probably would not have shaved off much time - maybe 1 or 2 seconds off a stage that averaged around 60 seconds to complete.One of the major benefits I see in competition is the ability to test equipment in a controlled environment. If we more regularly had low light stages where competitors could use their own lights, we would likely see advances in flashlight technology, ergonomics, mounting systems etc the same way we see it in every other aspect of firearms accessories as used in the sport.
-
Rules only allow flashlights attached to the gun in Open division See appendix D1. I also think the there is a rule that states you can not add or remove anything to the gun once the match starts. ie: flashlights, Slide rackers ect. Just could not find it.
MDA
I'm not referring to USPSA 3 Gun, only outlaw matches. But for the record I have spent most of the past 4 years competing in Open at outlaw 3 Gun matches (which often do not prohibit lights on handguns at all) when Trooper was not an available equipment division. I have been told I can't use the light I've had on my gun the entire match when competing in Open.
-
Let me just start out by saying I think every good rifle should have a light and maybe a laser. You can't be ATAS without one! I don't have a problem with you using your light if I can use my NVG's. I'll even leave them on the entire match.
LOL sure...we'll just clip the shot clock to your gear and send you in. If you shoot in no light, with a suppressor and the clock doesn't read any shots fired your stage time will be 0 and you'll get the cardboard assassin award.
-
Some major matches like to have low light stages. I agree these are fun, challenging, and a good practical shooting test.
What don't I like about the execution of many is being forced to use a provided light when I have my own on my guns and I keep those lights on my guns at all times. I've heard similar complaints from other competitors. There aren't many opportunities to actually use our equipment in low light conditions so when I get handed a G2 Nitrolon and I'm told I have to use this when I have an X200 on my Glock its pretty irritating.
I understand having lights available for competitors to use who don't have their own. Ironman 3 Gun dealt with this the best this year in having a Surefire rep on the stage with a dozen different lights for people to try based on the guns they were using.
The only requirement we might consider for people who do want to use their own lights is that it must be on their gun for every other stage of the match.
-
I'd go a step further and advocate one-gun only matches - just rifle or just shotgun (we have lots of "just pistol" already of course). Less equipment to schlep, lower cost of entry, not constantly changing wardrobe etc. However, the last time I spoke in favor of this, the glitterati here drowned me out with cires of "booooooorrriiiiinnnggggg".
You are right, those are even more new shooter friendly. We get A LOT of new shooters at the Independence Day Action Rifle Match every year, we also got a lot of new shooters at the Halloween Shotgun Match last year too. If I can consistently fill up local matches with 50-60 people, I think there has to be a market for this stuff.
-
I understand where the OP is coming from.
However, you walk a fine line on catering to noobs....
The market I am talking about isn't n00bs to shooting, or using guns dynamically, they are only n00bs to competition. Over 1 million troops have served in Iraq/Afghanistan for example, some of them came home and bought M4 Clones because they wanted something like their service weapon. It hasn't been uncommon for a whole group of National Guard/Reservists to have manufacturers and dealers set up group buys for their units.
It has nothing to do with the shotgun being hard to use/master; its simply that they don't see the value in doing so. More people are considering rifles to be their primary defensive use long gun than a shotgun; whether they are citizens, veterans, cops, or soldiers. For the people who do use shotguns for defensive purposes, 3 gun stages are typically outside the practical role of the gun; you will shoot the gun empty and go to your handgun.
If I didn't shoot 3 gun, I probably never would have messed around with shotguns as much as I have. The long gun I keep in the trunk/ready at home is a rifle, not a shotgun.
As for the ACTS matches, they bring in a completely different crowd from normal 3 gun so clearly they are tapping into something that AZ's excellent 3 gun matches are not. It seems that many 3 gunners will compete in ACTS but many ACTS shooters won't compete in 3 gun. Is it because 3 gun requires another gun? Or is 3 gun not tacticool enough? I don't know.
ACTS gets people who simply don't want to shoot shotgun, it is one reason many of the people there go. I think the other reason is marketing and stage design incorporating physical challenges.
-
Are you kidding Russell? From a guy that shoots trooper and carries everything with him all day i woudl expect the oppostite thread from you.
You may have noticed I said stages like Ironman where we actually shoot 20-40 rounds through each gun are cool.
I'm seeing more stuff where we shoot 10 rounds or less through each gun and throw it in a bucket. The stage designs for stages with all 3 guns often seem forced; i.e. "well we need a stage that has all 3 guns in it because that's what you do at a 3 Gun match".
Practicing throwing the safety on and throwing it in a bucket, or practicing speed clearing (dropping mag and cycling action) are requisite skills to practice to do well at matches now.
Why all three? I forces you to think in more dimensions at one time. I'm all for 'em.
If we were actually allowed to pick which guns we wanted to use to engage targets (within safety parameters) I think this would be more valid.
Example: "why am I throwing down the rifle I was just using to shoot slugs with a shotgun at 75 yards???" it feels forced and makes little sense as far as problem solving goes.
Stages that are just 2 guns often seem more logical in their design and premise.
I also would rather shoot two great stages than 5 mediocre stages.
That's what I'm getting at.
-
Russell, do the ACTS matches even the round count out between p and r?
It is usually 2/3 rifle, 1/3 pistol, but they mix it up.
You can see a lot of stages on my channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/SinistralRifleman
Here's Kelly Neal's Blogs about the match:
http://kellynealsblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/az-acts-match-april-2010/
http://kellynealsblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/acts-match-nov-09-stage-4/
http://kellynealsblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/acts-match-nov-09-stage-2/
-
Why do we have stages with all 3 guns? Particularly when we shoot 10 rounds or less out of each on a stage it feels like its more about a how fast you can throw the one down in a bucket without getting DQed.
Along with that always it seems to be that stages with all 3 guns take the longest to get reset/shooter staged up for.
What is the benefit of putting all 3 on one stage? Outside of massive stages like those at Ironman where you shoot a lot out of each gun it doesn't make much sense to me.
-
Some examples of comments in relation to this recently on a forum in reference to multigun:
Originally Posted By Shooter1:You already know I'd rather shoot rifle and pistol. I'm pretty "Meh," about shotgun.
Originally Posted By Shooter2:...I too would love a pistol / rifle tactical match...
Originally Posted By Shooter3:I don't even own a Shotgun that'd I'd compete with. Only ARs and Pistols.
It's not the type of shotguns people have, its that they don't own them, and even if they do, its not their "go to" gun.
jtischauser got it right with "Every tactical red neck has a glock or 1911 and an AR15..."
-
The USPSA classification system thread and discussion of marketing got me thinking about this...
The number one reason people tell me they don't want to shoot 3 Gun is because they don't have/don't want to buy a shotgun just for shooting a game. I have heard this more and more over the past 5 years.
There are 3 major things contributing to this:
1) We have a large pool of people coming back from the war, who have bought carbines similar to the ones they were issued, and want an outlet to practice the martial skills they learned and used. Very few of these people actually used shotguns, and those who did will admit their limited utility.
2) The focus in commercial defensive/tactical shooting schools is entirely geared around rifles and handguns now, there aren't many tactical shotgun classes taught anymore by comparison.
3) Expense: one less gun makes it that much more affordable to compete in both initial equipment investment and ammunition costs.
I think its time for local groups to start pushing Rifle/Pistol matches, and perhaps a national level match with just these two firearm types.
The American Confederation of Tactical Shooters Arizona contingent runs monthly matches with consistently good turn outs for local level events. It is strictly a rifle/pistol match, with many of the stages combining physical challenge elements, and the stages are often based around real world incidents. The demographic of shooters at that event is different than most of the other matches I attend; the mean age is younger, and more active duty military, veterans, and Law Enforcement attend it. There are also more people attending who have paid for commercial training that want a monthly event to keep their skills sharp.
Whether it is tactically based or more sport oriented I think there is a market for Rifle/Pistol matches.
-
If we want to increase attendance in Multi-Gun/Action Shooting Sports more venues is probably more critical than what rules any governing body has. When all the major matches fill up or come close to it, its time for more venues.
-
The button on the side of the trigger guard to release a shell onto the carrier functions the same way as on the other Benellis. The fact the Benellis do not drop a shell onto the carrier when the action is cycled without the trigger being pulled, makes it easier to select load, or just clear out the chamber when you're climbing over fences or whatever when hunting as someone else mentioned.
The action selector is on the front of the M3. Going to pump mode is an immediate action drill, simply reach forward, rotate it and start pumping. This is only a back up feature for using lighter loads, breaching rounds, or tear gas (cop stuff). You probably don't want to run your M3 in pump mode all the time because you will put excessive wear on those parts. In pump mode it is faster than a lot of other pumps, the action spring is helping you snap back all the way forward.
-
Possibilities ... thinking outside of the box ... have teams from disciplines (and therefor more teams). Trap shooters vs USPSA vs high power vs SASS etc.
If it were to be a team based competition this is what I would suggest.
Each team has an accomplished High Power, Cowboy, USPSA, 3 Gunner, Precision Rifle, Sporting Clays, etc shooter on their team. The teams compete in events against each other in all these different disciplines. Here's the catch, the expert in that sport doesn't shoot, its his job to be the coach/trainer for the others prior to the event.
-
Feelings aside how would this classification system work? Logically I am having a hard time seeing how you could have a classification system that would work and still have a balanced class for any match
Case A:
Classifiers for all 3 guns, percentages are averaged together to give an over all skill classification. Use the existing percentage ranges for classes
Case B:
percentages are added together to give the shooter points. Points ranges are established for different classifications
The problem I see with either are what if the match doesn't have a long range stage that dropped the A class pistol shooter down to a B or C Class 3 gunner? If the same skill sets aren't always tested every match the classifications really mean nothing and results will not be consistent.
-
This will never work for TV. How did it go the last time you tried to explain USPSA scoring to someone new?
Why not? I think some graphics with points accrued in a bar graph format would make it easy enough to understand. The audience doesn't need to know the math behind the points, just who has the most points and how many points are needed to win.
I have no idea how football is scored but I can still see how many points one team has vs another. I can watch Ninja Warrior in Japanese and not even read the subtitles, but know who has the most time left on the clock at the end of a stage. Graphic overlays.
-
How would this even work?
Classifiers for each gun that are then averaged together?
I think this would in effect mandate that each gun was exactly 33% of the match.
-
Any competition that relies on competitors voting other competitors off is not a legitimate competition.
When all of us were trying out for this show they said they wanted people skilled with as many different weapons as possible. For the most part they chose specialists that were experts within their respective disciplines but not over all multi-functional.
With these things in mind; They should pick 10-16 people. Everyone competes in every challenge as an individual. Stages are graded on a curve. Whenever someone falls below X aggregate percentage over all, eliminate them. In fact maybe not eliminate anyone for 2-4 challenges and allow everyone to accrue points, after those challenges then eliminate the lowest few people.
The show should also include more historical information on the firearms being used; this is the history channel after all.
Variable Scope vs Red Dot + Magnifier
in Rifle - Technical
Posted · Edited by SinistralRifleman
There is the key, red dots have a distinct advantage over anything with limited eye relief when shooting from less than ideal positions.
One advantage I see to the Dot + Magnifier set up is that I only need one magnifier and I can jump it between guns equipped with dots without needing to rezero anything. As someone mentioned you can also now take the magnifier on and off and be relatively effective in several divisions now.