3 gun nationals rifle question

[scooterdog]

I have a question regarding the legality of the use of the 30 Gremlin by the AMU. I may be interpreting the rules incorrectly but in appendix D, is says that tactical rifles are supposed to be produced by a factory in units of at least 500 and prototypes are not allowed. Opinions?

[abn-rgr]

I think you are right on the money. Not sure what others will say.

ETA....I dont think it would matter what Daniel Horner shoots. He is an animal with all three guns. Still, I think it needs to be brought up.

Edited May 6, 2010 by abn-rgr

[D.Hayden]

I was thinking with ARs.. isn't the "rifle" just the lower? And those are stock.

[gose]

I was thinking with ARs.. isn't the "rifle" just the lower? And those are stock.

The rules say:

"Any complete rifle that has been produced by a factory in units of at least 500 in any 12-month period."

Personally I dont have a problem with it, but maybe the rule needs to be clarified/changed a bit?

Edited May 6, 2010 by gose

[D.Hayden]

Sure.. use the rules...

It really depends on how much you're allowed to change things. Poeple change barrels all the time, there are not many 3 Gun rifles out there that were made by a single company.

If you have a DPMS lower, JP Upper.. what model is that? Who builds it? Are there 500 of that combination?

Or is it changing the caliber?

There's no mass produced, complete 30 Gremlins rifles?

ETA - Also, I agree. I have no problem with anyone shooting any caliber combination, or who made it, as long as it makes the rest of the tactical rules.

Edited May 6, 2010 by BerKim

[gose]

Sure.. use the rules...

It really depends on how much you're allowed to change things. Poeple change barrels all the time, there are not many 3 Gun rifles out there that were made by a single company.

If you have a DPMS lower, JP Upper.. what model is that? Who builds it? Are there 500 of that combination?

Or is it changing the caliber?

There's no mass produced, complete 30 Gremlins rifles?

ETA - Also, I agree. I have no problem with anyone shooting any caliber combination, or who made it, as long as it makes the rest of the tactical rules.

Well, replacing a barrel is explicitly allowed.

What if you build a rifle yourself, using stock components.. surely that wouldnt be allowed either then, unless you build it to exact specs of a "factory" rifle (but even then it can be argued that it's not built by a "factory".)

Though replacing barrels and forearms are ok, it doesnt seem like replacing an upper receiver would be ok, so anyone with a DPMS lower and JP upper would also end up in open...

I think the current situation, as applied, is just fine. The only thing that might need to change is the rule... If USPSA would start enforcing this rule exactly as written, USPSA multigun would die...

Edited May 7, 2010 by gose

[ken hebert]

You know.. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this: It probably wasn't any big secret to the match staff (amidon among them) that the AMU guys were gonna show up with some off-the-wall wild cat caliber rifle and shoot the match with it. I cant believe that they would allow Daniel to compete for score knowing his rifle wasn't rule book compliant, so I'm guessing that the .30 Gremlin is GTG.

And add me to the list that doesn't have a problem with it.

[smokshwn]

I was thinking with ARs.. isn't the "rifle" just the lower? And those are stock.

The rules say:

"Any complete rifle that has been produced by a factory in units of at least 500 in any 12-month period."

Personally I dont have a problem with it, but maybe the rule needs to be clarified/changed a bit?

If you want to apply that specific clause in the rifle rules then the number of rifles that would be DQ'd from competition would be at least 75% of the field. There aren't too many rifles with components from one manufacturer. Lots of lower/upper combos out there.

BTW, I am in the crowd of the wildcat caliber being a non issue. The rule is in place to keep a lid on someone using a weapon platform that noone else can get. Although I think that building a 30 Gremlin would be a pretty spendy way to earn some extra match points, there was nothing about that rifle that could not be reproduced by anyone of us.

[Sako92S]

How about changing that rule sentence to:

"Any complete rifle that has been build/produced of commonly available components."

[gose]

I was thinking with ARs.. isn't the "rifle" just the lower? And those are stock.

The rules say:

"Any complete rifle that has been produced by a factory in units of at least 500 in any 12-month period."

Personally I dont have a problem with it, but maybe the rule needs to be clarified/changed a bit?

If you want to apply that specific clause in the rifle rules then the number of rifles that would be DQ'd from competition would be at least 75% of the field. There aren't too many rifles with components from one manufacturer. Lots of lower/upper combos out there.

BTW, I am in the crowd of the wildcat caliber being a non issue. The rule is in place to keep a lid on someone using a weapon platform that noone else can get. Although I think that building a 30 Gremlin would be a pretty spendy way to earn some extra match points, there was nothing about that rifle that could not be reproduced by anyone of us.

Actually, I said (at least meant to say) completely the opposite of that... I don't want to apply that clause.

I agree with you, I dont think wildcats are an issue and I think the way Tactical is working now is perfectly fine. However, the way the rule is written might open up for complaints about things like the Gremlin, so, I want the rule to change to make sure that wont happen.

Edited May 7, 2010 by gose

[Schutzenmeister]

Interesting arguments ... However:

What is your basis for thinking Amidon, Schmidt, or anyone else on the match staff had ANY inside knowledge beforehand of what the AMU was bringing to the match? I find the question of a never before seen cartridge being unveiled vis-à-vis Appendix D4 intriguing, but I must agree ... Sgt Horner would have won that match no matter WHAT he shot!

[pjb45]

What a great thread!

I found the article interesting in that the AMU created a special caliber/rifle combination that would be considered a technical advantage. Clearly the way the article was presented supports this premise.

The next question was that technical advantage within the rules? Probably, the receiver and upper were probably stock/production components as were the fire controls. The caliber was a wildcat developed expressly to provide a technical advantage but that in itself does not qualify as being out of compliance for me. Innovation drives this sport re: Open and Limited v Production and Single Stack.

Therein lies the conundrum. Should 3G be organized to support technical innovation while at the same time making it competitive for the average shooter. Honestly how many of you have a group of gunsmiths that can develop a caliber for you and build a custom rifle? Kind of like comparing a Kodiak Precision SV Open gun to a stock SA XD.

I totally agree that Sgt Horner is a great talent and good for 3G. This is not about him winning a match he probably would have won shooting a stock Bushmaster. It is really about how do we encourage innovation while balancing the dollar investment by the average shooter. On a personal note, I do not see how a very talented 3G college student can compete in the equipment wars with the AMU or a multi-millionaire. He can not. There should be a place on the winners stand for both much like there is in USPSA Pistol competitions.

I really see this a USPSA has taken their first steps in organizing 3G rules. This discussion should lead the BOD into more clarifications of those rules.

[smokshwn]

What a great thread!

I found the article interesting in that the AMU created a special caliber/rifle combination that would be considered a technical advantage. Clearly the way the article was presented supports this premise.

The next question was that technical advantage within the rules? Probably, the receiver and upper were probably stock/production components as were the fire controls. The caliber was a wildcat developed expressly to provide a technical advantage but that in itself does not qualify as being out of compliance for me. Innovation drives this sport re: Open and Limited v Production and Single Stack.

Therein lies the conundrum. Should 3G be organized to support technical innovation while at the same time making it competitive for the average shooter. Honestly how many of you have a group of gunsmiths that can develop a caliber for you and build a custom rifle? Kind of like comparing a Kodiak Precision SV Open gun to a stock SA XD.

I totally agree that Sgt Horner is a great talent and good for 3G. This is not about him winning a match he probably would have won shooting a stock Bushmaster. It is really about how do we encourage innovation while balancing the dollar investment by the average shooter. On a personal note, I do not see how a very talented 3G college student can compete in the equipment wars with the AMU or a multi-millionaire. He can not. There should be a place on the winners stand for both much like there is in USPSA Pistol competitions.

I really see this a USPSA has taken their first steps in organizing 3G rules. This discussion should lead the BOD into more clarifications of those rules.

If we limit the Multi Millinoaire with respect to equipment, should the rulebook have set limits on the time and number of rounds expended in practice? Surely the college student cannot compete in the ammo and spare time wars either.

Artificially limiting equipment development doesn't change the outcome. Give me the ultimate .28 caliber Whizzenblaster Special, and without the requisite skill and practice to shoot it, I will still not win. The quote in my sig line is from Jeff Cooper, I find it interesting that in 30 years of this sport we continue to struggle with the basic premise of his statement.

Gose,

My wording was poor, I didn't intend to point the application directly at you just merely point out that not very many guns are in a total production format. I agree with your intent on a rule change...it seems that rule was simply lifted from the pistol rules without much thought given to how many AR's out there are parts guns.

Edited May 7, 2010 by smokshwn

[pjb45]

Either you missed my point or I did not understand yours.

[scooterdog]

Guys-

After reading all the replys, I think the intent of question has been lost. I am questioning the interpretaion of the rifle rules (specifically Appendix D) versus what was used at the multi-gun nationals. We all agree that we don't want the sport to have a 500 page rule book - but the rules are there to create standards for everyone to adhere to. That's why there is Open, Tactical, Limited.

Appendix D4 says factory produced guns in quantities of at least 500. Prototypes are not allowed, but barrel replacements and replacement of other parts (sights, safetys, ejection ports, fore-ends, stocks etc) are and internal modifications for accuracy & reliability are allowed.

Now, people can talk about shooting what ever you bring, or shooting whatever wildcat cartridge you want or argue the merits of new parts or modifications or the perceived unfairness somebody with more money to spend may have all day long. And I am not arguing about not having development in our sport. I definitely don't want the sport to become stale and boring and controlled by a combersome rulebook.

but to me, the key words under Appendix D4 for Tactical are "Prototypes are specifically not allowed". The 30 Gremlin seems to be a pretty potent round with a lot of potential. Great. Why wasn't the gun shot as Open?

I am also not arguing about how good Horner is. I think he could've shot the match with 10 round mags and on crutches and beat everyone. But I think he should've been shooting Open with the 30 Gremlin cartridge and not Tactical. That's just my opinion - what's yours?

[el pres]

I agree with you Scooter, for the same reasons and with the same exceptions. I believe there is a bigger question underlying weather this gun was legal or not. Although I dont really want to take the bait on this one.

[smokshwn]

Scooter,

In reading the rifle rules for Tactical, where is it specified that a caliber change moves the gun/caliber combo to open? In black and white the barrel change is legal for the gun to still be used in Tactical. Unlike in the pistol rules where there are caliber limitations on the divisions, there is no such limitation in rifle. Therefore switching the gun to another caliber does nothing to violate the rules. I just don't see where any item in D2 or D4 was violated.

The only question that would cause concern is, was it built on a previously "complete" rifle that had met the factory production #'s of 500 units?

That is where in my original post I warned of pushing this ruling. There are way too many AR's out there that were never in factory configuration to begin with. That may be impossible to prove however that is the only scab to pick with the 30 Gremlin as it was shot at Nats.

Edited May 8, 2010 by smokshwn

[Bryan 45]

In my mind, a prototype would be shooting something like the Magpul ACR before Bushmaster and Remington had made 500. I don't see a change in caliber as a prototype. It's an AR-15, exactly the same in form and function as yours or mine, just in a different caliber.

Of course, the definition of prototype isn't up to me or you!

And I seriously doubt the AMU spent time, energy, and money in developing the .30 Gremlin for 3-gun. I would expect it just happened to fit into their schedule.

[Schutzenmeister]

[...]

And I seriously doubt the AMU spent time, energy, and money in developing the .30 Gremlin for 3-gun. I would expect it just happened to fit into their schedule.

As I recall, part of the AMU's charter is to explore techniques, technology, and equipment for use by the armed forces. (Yes, the armed forces, not just the Army ...) Hence, it would not suprise me in the least that they purpose-built the .30 Gremlin just for 3-Gun. From there, I suspect they will evaluate the design further to determine if it has practical (spelled R-E-A-L W-O-R-L-D) potential for them. It has already had a baptism in competition ... Had it not proved its worth in Vegas, there would be no need to develop it further for Afganistan, for example.

[Larry White]

I've had that rifle in my hands. I dont remember what brand the upper or lwr were but it really dosent matter. Its a flat top AR15 with a free float tube. All the mfgs have built them by the thousands. There isnt anything on it or in it that you cant buy. There isnt anything on it or in it that is outside the rules, Its really kind of a unremarkable rifle. It has a bigger hole in the end of it but nothing in the rules about that. The ammo is diffrent but nothing in the rules about that either. Some people just play the game a little better sometimes, and this time the AMU did. Come to think of it I'm kind of proud of them for that. The rules are fine.------------Larry

[smokshwn]

Larry, I wish I could quit you

[Charles Bond]

I've had that rifle in my hands. I dont remember what brand the upper or lwr were but it really dosent matter. Its a flat top AR15 with a free float tube. All the mfgs have built them by the thousands. There isnt anything on it or in it that you cant buy. There isnt anything on it or in it that is outside the rules, Its really kind of a unremarkable rifle. It has a bigger hole in the end of it but nothing in the rules about that. The ammo is diffrent but nothing in the rules about that either. Some people just play the game a little better sometimes, and this time the AMU did. Come to think of it I'm kind of proud of them for that. The rules are fine.------------Larry

Some one (it was either Linda Chico or another ace scoring person) reconstituted the scores as to what would have been the result had Daniel shot a minor rifle. In that reagard, is this matter not now moot?

[jar]

Some one (it was either Linda Chico or another ace scoring person) reconstituted the scores as to what would have been the result had Daniel shot a minor rifle. In that reagard, is this matter not now moot?

I think the larger issue is defining just what factory quantity of 500 means regarding AR-15s. I'm in the process of building a new rifle that I may end up using for 3-gun/rifle matches (in tac optics). I'm building the gun on Anvil Arms receivers. Anvil sold complete rifles, but I have no idea how many or what configuration or if that mattered. My conclusion was that whatever the rule actually means, I see plenty of people with self-assembled franken-guns, so I wasn't going to worry about it. It would be nice to get some clarification of the rule though.

[Dan Sierpina]

This forum is a great place for speculation concerning rules and interpretations. However, a simple email to John Amidon will get an official ruling.

[RiggerJJ]

If you took a bunch of parts from different manufacturers and built a 1911, and chambered it in 41 short (a made-up wildcat round, 41 cal bullets but 45 cases) would it be legal?

me thinks so...

jj