glock34shooter

Give me all your load data and I'll get you the stadia line numbers.

Mark, I don't believe I was being dismissive. I will say I have reservations about it, but as I said I recently bought some to make my own determination. I hope I'm wrong and find they work better than expected. Jesse You and I must shoot two different sports. Having stages that put you on the ground or have you shooting over, under, and or through obstacles is more the norm for stuff around here. That is not to say one is better than the other just obviously different. Matt

Top guys were about 5 seconds for weakhand load 8, average Joes were about 12. Top speed guys now are about 4, and an average guy can easily be 6. Those would not be living room times. I'd say a 350% closign of the gap is kind of good.The "Roots"? Of what do you speak? It was 1100s with Buckshot at plates, standing, the first several years. Or do you mean MDs should go to trying any way they can to slow down shooters and trip them up...not sure that was the way in the "roots" either. After a match had some prone shoots, I queried a few "Tactical/LE" shotgun trainers and asked them how much prone shotgun they taught. All laughed their butts off and said they had never taught prone shotgun, and would not. They do some on the side for a shot or two, but primarily the answer was they "don't do that gamey stuff". As was pointed out before, 3gun involves more than one gun. I was more speaking of a stage design that had positional shooting in general not exclusively to shotgun. As an active police officer, trainer, swat operator, and swat sniper I am well versed in the likelyhood of specifically shooting a shotgun prone. Prone rifle and pistol on the other hand is done and taught regularly. I understand you make products that you want to sell and support and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but the fact remains that none of the L2 or quad systems will work well if a stage has prone or positional shooting. Now I did recently purchase some AP L2/4 holders, because I am not opposed to trying new things. I just have to figure out how they work in the type of matches I run and attend. I guess what it really boils down to with most people that have been shooting 3gun for several years is all the work that was spent training and practicing has been surpassed by a piece of equipment. This reality is both good and bad depending on which side of the line you are standing on. Matt

I think one of the things that have made the load two and quad loading so popular is it doesn't take a lot of work or effort to become relatively proficient. Newer shooters have been able to make up some time, but now that the big guys have adapted to this we will just see the gap increase again. The types of matches I shoot have prone and positional shooting which can cause issues for load 2 or quad loading holders. I would be willing to bet if 3gun went back to its roots a little and used stage designs that had prone and adverse position L2 and quad loading would show its weaknesses. Matt

Gents I bought an M2 and I have a +5 tube that gives me 8 total. I would like to know if a XXL end cap is long enough to fit and extra shell in for a total of 9. Matt

I also carry more than I normally use. I like to load up before the match so I don't have to worry about it at the match. So it is as follows: 7-30s 1-30 coupled 1-48 1-20

I have one and it is okay. If you are looking for something hind this is not it. It is also very big. Matt

I mostly shoot 55gr at 3100. Which matches the reticle almost exactly. At 200 and 300 it is exact and 400 and 500 it's short by 6 yard. The scope is hard to beat especially at that price point. Matt

"The illumination, when you decide you need it in the middle of a stage because the light changed...totally worth it." I think if you are taking time while on the clock to turn on illumination then you have already lost. "The better and faster you get, the more you will appreciate the reticle on the MTAC." I understand you like the scope and it works for you, but come on. That reticle is maybe go for hosing, but it is less than optimal for long range shooting. If it was great or even good more people would be using it. Most people use this is for the price point not the usability. Another thing to think about is what round the reticle is calibrated for. I don't know where the 62 grain FMJ at 3025 at 2000 feet of altitude came from. It is pretty close to green tip which you can't use for 3gun. I guess we should all use what works for us. Matt

I have spent time with each of the scope you are looking at except the Leupold. I absolutely don't like the reticle in the Mtac/ tac30. It is one of the weirdest reticles I have seen. I know it works for some other people, but not for me. The Vortex reticle was much better for me. I have had three different Vortex scopes and I am currently using Razor II. I would look through a Mtac or tac30 before you decide to buy one.

Couldn't that be compensated for by using a closer zero, say 25-50 yds? Playing around on Strelock using 55grn @ 2850 100yd zero shows 2.26 MOA at 200, just under the first hash??? I'm trying to decide between the Razor II and the Leupold multigun, both have a "hot dot" that is daylight visible, 6x, equal FOV, strong warranty, but the Leupold is also marked for windage, etc. What am I missing and please save your sarcasum for someone that thinks they know what they're talking about. I'm new to this but I think I know what I don't know... If you have iStrelock just set the reticle to the Leupold SPR reticle. The first hash the SPR is 2.5 MILS. Not 2.26 MOA. 2.5 mils is roughly 2.5x3.43= 8.6 MOA. Inputting your specs, 100yd zero, 2850 fps with 2.7" sight line and .243 BC the first hash is predicted to be 400 yards. Not good in my book. With the above settings for the: Vortex JM-1 BDC: 100 / 231 / 325 /418 /512 /750 Leupold SPR: 100 / 400 / 550 / 659 / 743 / 812 / 868 IMHO the JM-1 BDC is waaaaaaayyy better suited to 3gun than the SPR reticle. The Vortex JM-1 reticle is designed for a 200 yard zero. Then your hash mark are 300,400,500,600. It works best with a 200. Matt

It is gun and barrel dependent. I have had zero issues shooting slugs through a full choke with my FN. Matt

"I also sprinkled a handful of gun certificates in zip tied ammo cans to make things more interesting, but that was only possible in the bigger divisions." There is nothing that pisses me off more than when this is done. The shooters that spent a thousand dollars or more to make it to a match and perform well enough deserve better than gun certificate to be hidden in range bags or ammo cans or whatever. I would be much more accepting of raffle tickets in your shooters bag than hidden certificates. If I wanted to gamble I'd play cards instead. Matt

They hold up "ok" while prone. I've practiced quite a bit with these and used them at SMM3G and at a local Match. If the terrain is even while prone, then they hold shells well. If there are rocks, grass tufts etc then it may cause a shell to drop (usually a bottom shell). I've noticed that if you accidentally hit the top of the bottom shell while reloading or while prone that it can cause that shell to fall out. That being said, these are great caddies. I'll have them at Nationals next week if anyone would like to see them first hand. Steve Thanks. They look very interesting.

Jesse, How do they hold up when a shooter lays on the in the prone both full and empty? I really want to try this loading method but my concern is how do they hold up. We do a lot of prone in the matches I shoot so it is a major concern for me. Matt

Mine is in a std recon mount. It is lined up with the end of my upper. Works fine for me. Matt

I have both scopes currently. The leupold is a very nice scope but the reticle choices leave a lot to be desired. Comparing the two side by side the Vortex is better in pretty much every conceivable way except the weight. The construction of the Vortex is amazing. The way the turrets and illumination knobs work and are set up are awesome. The reticle seems to be ideal for 3gun Matt

Dean Is it no more than nine at the start or no more than nine ever, or eight round tube only. I just want to make sure I have my shotgun configured right when I arrive Matt

Eurooptic.com offers a 10% cash or check discount. I got mine last week for $1260. I haven't had a chance to do much with it yet, but since my back ordered barrel just shipped it will be in use next week. Matt

Brian you are probable correct. I have been spoiled by the facility I have available to me. The classifier thing just doesn't seem to make sense to me, but that is just me. In the end people should do what ever works for them. Oh and I'm still mad at you for beating me in the shoot out at BRM3G a few years back.

This is a good example of what I've been saying. That was a 7 second stage and Clint smoked it, but it was a one gun stage plus a bullet. The only movement was at his waist. HOW IS THIS A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF 3GUN? Think about it if you get someone that is awesome with a shotgun they could an be expert without shooting a rifle once or their shotgun or pistol past 15 yards under this classification system.

Charles everyone that I know that has shot in your matches have had good things to say. I will be there in April, and I'm looking forward to it. Now here is the difference between Tidewater 3gun and Tarheel 3gun, my match time out is 200 seconds and yours is less than half of that. Almost all of my stages have use 3 guns. My average round count per stage is around 40 round without a miss. A short stage is probably around 60 seconds for the stage winner with most being over 100 seconds. I would say around 80 percent of the rifle shoots in my match are over 50 yards. I try to have at least two stages that have several shots between 200 and 350. From all accounts you are doing a masterful job with your match, but trying to compare yours and mine is apples and oranges. The difference in stage time along should explain why I logistically can not utilize a 30 second stage. My average time per squad per stage is about 1.5 hours, so having one stage that takes 30 minutes to run a squad through would causes an enormous logjam within a couple of hours. Matt

I have not had a problem with anything with 3GN until this classification stuff came about. The classifaction stages are not 3gun stages. 3gun is NOT stand and shoot for 15-30 seconds. If that is your idea of 3gun you have been shooting a different sport than me. How can you possibly have a 3gun classifier if it does not include long range rifle. How is doing a modified El Prez with pistol and rifle indicative of 3gun? Yet the idea is to have a stage like that be a deciding fact in how a 3gunner is absolutely ridiculous. This is exactly what I meant by change our sport. If I were to change my match over I would have to hand over a little more than 10 percent of my match income for 3GN to maintain classification scores. My match uses every dollar we bring in after fees to buy new equipment. Does anyone really think match funds are better spent on classification scores than on a new star, flasher, spinner, or something that actually makes the match better? I believe this whole thing is a group of IPSC shooters trying to make 3gun into something they like.

The problem I have with this is I don't want to be a slave to 3GN or a classification system. I dont want to have to use someone elses rules. I dont want to require my participants to be members of 3GN to shoot my match. I dont want to have to pay 3GN a fee for them to maintain classifications. The problem in my mind is to many people are trying to turn 3gun into and IPSC/ USPSA type of system. Most of the people that want this are the type of people that need a card or score to tell them how good they are. The classifiers I watched are in no way a good representation of 3gun. It is a good representation of people trying to make 3gun like ISPC. All of the things that make 3gun what it is has been removed in the classifier videos. What I envision happening is a bunch of "paper experts". We all know that is what will happen. Why are we trying to change our sport? What are we missing? Changing things to make them better is usually good, but changing things just to change them or to make them look better on TV is dumb. I wish 3gn would have stayed on it's original course of being at major matches and bringing attention to what we were doing. What makes this sport so great is every match is unique. We have different matches with different rules that require different skill sets. A friend and I have been running a match at Blackwater/USTC/ Academi for about three years. We run a four stage match that are usually true 3gun stages. The time out for our monthly Is 200 seconds. The average time per stage is probably around 100 seconds. If we were to add a 15-30 second stage to satisfy 3GN, we would cause all kinds of back ups and logistical nightmares. I am not against 3GN. I really appreciate the attention they have brought to this sport. I think they have grown our sport, and have brought in sponsors that may have not gotten involved without them. I just wish their push would be to enhance what we already have rather than try to change it to what they believe is best. Matt

That is kind of correct. Leupold will switch the reticle IF they have one that will work in your particular scope. The VX6 currently does not have any options available in BDC type reticle, unless you want the SPR reticle. I have spoke with leupold custom shop on a few occasions about this very thing. Matt