Rule Modification

[StealthyBlagga]

This is what the Ozark rules state and we will be glad to answer for ourselves:

6.8.3 Rifles may be equipped with mechanical sights or 1x optics only. Only one sighting system may be used. BUIS may be on the gun but must remain folded. In the event the electronic sight goes down the RO must be notified before the stage starts. At this time the electronic sight must be removed for the remainder of the match and the BUIS can be used. Either a fixed front or rear sight may be on the gun, but not both at the same time.

Im not sure why this is confusing or a bad idea. And dont think we just decided to invoke the good idea fairy rule. This was discussed off site with other MD's and shooters. Dont be surprised to see this exact wording again.

Oh brother, what a load of nonsense. If irons along side the scope is OK for Tac Scope, why is anyone getting all bent out of shape over irons along side a RDS ? Who cares if there is some perceived "advantage" ? The goal of allowing RDS is to make Tac Iron more appealing to the huge number of folks with the popular combination of an M4 carbine, red dot optic and BUIS... we totally defeat the purpose of this rule change, and lose that growth potential, if Match Directors start getting all analy retentive about when BUIS can be used.

Putting it in the context of the "real world" (if that matters to anyone), a lot of folks in harms way leave their BUIS up and ready for instant use in case their optic goes down. This is an entirely valid technique, and not something that should be penalized.

Sometimes the stuff people put in their match rules just boggles my mind.

Edited September 14, 2010 by StealthyBlagga

[bigbrowndog]

As this topic seems to be getting argumentative, I'm done with this or I may upset folks and be thrown off the forum

trapr

[Bryan 45]

Just my opinion, but I don't think the one sighting system requirement is so much about BUIS as it is dedicated long range iron sights. If rifles were allowed with a set of precision irons on top of it and a RDS at 1:30, it wouldn't be much like any of the rifles riding around in patrol cars or sitting in closets, but it would be a common rifle at matches. The rule change, as I see it, is a compromise between not forcing RDS shooters to compete against magnified optics and (hopefully) bringing additional competition into the iron sight division.

I feel it would have created even more issues to try to differintiate between BUIS and precision irons, which is likely why the -one sighting system- language was used.

[SinistralRifleman]

Just my opinion, but I don't think the one sighting system requirement is so much about BUIS as it is dedicated long range iron sights. If rifles were allowed with a set of precision irons on top of it and a RDS at 1:30, it wouldn't be much like any of the rifles riding around in patrol cars or sitting in closets, but it would be a common rifle at matches....

Then the rules should specify that all sighting devices be on the same plane, not contrived things about how to let the RO know you need to use the BUIS and precluding you from doing so in the middle of a stage.

If people are worried about advantages I'd worry more about EOtechs with 5.56mm BDC reticles, or Matech Mounts for aimpoint micros that let you shoot out to 600 yards easily than someone having iron sights for range and a dot for close range.

[Bryan 45]

The Eotech is the very reason BUIS exist, right?

I just googled the matech mount, that is a neat base.

[StealthyBlagga]

Just my opinion, but I don't think the one sighting system requirement is so much about BUIS as it is dedicated long range iron sights. If rifles were allowed with a set of precision irons on top of it and a RDS at 1:30, it wouldn't be much like any of the rifles riding around in patrol cars or sitting in closets, but it would be a common rifle at matches....

Firstly, this is entirely theoretical - trying to overthink a "problem" that may not become one.

Secondly, I'm missing the part where this is a problem ! One of the really valuable things the practical shooting sports do is develop new and innovative solutions to practical problems. Who is to say that some particular sighting arrangement is impractical (which I assume is the reason behind this kind of rule). The reality of these kinds of rules is that folks with genuinely practical kit get penalized and driven away. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Stlhead]

One system or two will make little if any difference as long as they are not magnified. It still gets back to the shooter and the amount of time he or she has spent practicing whatever system that they choose to use. The only reason that I run two optics on my open rifle is so that I don't have to flip a lever to go from 1x to 3.5x. As the red dot has the same level of magnification as irons, I see no need to have a separate aiming system. Some might see a value in having multiple systems with multiple zeros, who knows. I amend my previous post, I don't care what people decide to hang on the sides of their guns. I do think that I will enjoy shooting more red dot limited, I like the feel of the rifle. Bring on the BUIS's, co witness, lower third or absolute. And as for the Eotech with multiple aiming points, or any other yet to be designed 1x optic that may make shooting flashers ridiculously easy, when it gets to the point that you can't compete without one we can change the rules then. Right now there are less than 20 people in the country that are willing to compete in limited and HM combined at a notional level match. I don't think that this rule change or even any proposed rule change that I have heard seriously discussed would be able to reduce participation below what we have. Uspsa has already adopted the rules as they see fit. Next year the major non-Uspsa matches may adopt some different adaptations of the rule. Let's shoot some matches in limited and evaluate the rules, then we will have something to argue about for sure. As it stands now, I bet that some of the people arguing on this issue don't even shoot in limited or HM, nothing wrong with this, but opinions change with experience.

Good luck!

[RiggerJJ]

just a couple of out-loud-thoughts;

(thought provoking ideas...)

1. If 1x = irons, then 1x on pistol = irons?

(I think we all can agree that a 1x (or rds) on a pistol IS an advantage, so why isn't it an advantage on a rifle?)

(and consider the same for shotguns...)

2. I shot Nationals with a side mounted rds in limited division (and precision iron on top), and I liked it better than irons on the side. Is it an advantage? I think it was, FOR ME. (not sure about the masses)

just pondering things...

jj

[kellyn]

You guys really crack me up. I am completely on board with Steathlyblagga and Sinistralrifleman (must be an AZ thing).

This division has my 100% support and I hope all the match directors come around to adopting it. I would note that ALL of the good iron sight shooters that I am aware of support the division (Kurt, Pat, myself, Robby Johnson, Trapr, Mike P) and really have no worries about competing against red dot/1X sight or rifles with 2, 3, 4 or 5 sets of sights on them.

Who cares how many iron sights people bolt on their rifle? or if they use BUIS and their red dot at the same time (which would seem to be a big disadvantage to me)? Do you think it is going to make a difference as to who wins? I predict with a great degree of certainty that the winners in the division will have 1) one 1X optic probably an Eotech or a Prismatic with a fancy reticle or 2) extended sight radius iron sights.

JJ, your comparisons are not really valid as we are talking about very different weapon systems (apples to oranges). Pistol iron sights have such a short sight radius that red dots do offer a real advantage. Shotgun iron sights also have short sight radius especially if using a barrel mounted rear sight and every shotgun iron sight that I have ever seen really has a coarse sight picture and is terrible for flying targets. That is not true with red dots on shotguns which again offer a real advantage over irons. Red dots on shotguns are both great for slugs and flying targets, definitely not so with irons. BUT with rifles and their much longer sight radius and very well developed iron sights, red dots do not offer much an advantage, if any. In theory, they might but in practice I believe it to be mitigated.

[Stlhead]

JJ, I agree that for some a dot is an advantage on a pistol, it sure is for me. I think that the reason for this is because they are not as point-able as a long gun and the dot helps to compensate for this. I am not sure that the inherent advantage is as big (or even a solid advantage) on a long gun. There are many that argue that irons are faster up close, and even you prefer irons for longer shots, there may be some distance where the dot is better than the irons, but I am not sure that anything will generally hold for an entire group of shooters, people (and their eyes and brains) are just too different.

You ran your normal irons on top with an offset dot for the close stuff. I ran a top mounted dot for everything. Would you consider the top mounted dot only as much of an advantage as the setup you ran? Or would the advantage be less than the irons on top dot on the side? I liked the fact that I was just running one system, and I also felt like the gun was faster without the front sight (mental thing I am sure). In looking at the scores and what I normally do at matches, my scores (on the stages I did not blow) are in line with what I would normally do, did you notice a big jump in your scores over what you normally shoot?

I am still not sure what conclusions we can draw from just this one match with so few people playing in limited, but I had a good time and am considering shooting with just the red dot in future matches if it allowed in limited or HM. We have a regional 3 gun match coming up at my home range. I think that I may run a couple of rifle stages with irons for score and then with a dot for comparison in an unscientific test. It may not shed much light on the subject, but it will be fun!

Will red dots be allowed in tac irons and HM at RM3G next year?

[RiggerJJ]

Kelly & Sean,

Don't beat up on me too badly yall! I'm just thinking outloud...trying to get some discussion going, supposing things, ya know??? Trying to keep it light, don't need to get into a shouting match... you get my drift?

jj

[SinistralRifleman]

Well results from the local multigun match are up.

http://www.riopractical.com/text/rs.pdf

Stage 1 is the long range rifle stage with steel from 100-300 yards.

Stage 3 was rifle out to 50 yards on A LOT of paper.

Stage 2 was rifle and shotgun at targets less than 25 yards.

Anyway for the purposes of this thread the long range stage is the most relevant. I was using a Aimpoint M4 with 2MOA dot on a 14.5" gun with permanent flash hider (not a comp) I have a BUIS with a 50 yard zero (which remained undeployed!). I'm pretty sure the guy that won Tac-Iron was using Iron sights. My time on that stage was more than double his. All the targets 200 yards and under I had no issues with. I haven't shot a 3 gun match since Ironman in June, and I haven't shot at distance without magnification in a long time. I'll probably keep shooting with just a dot on my rifle through SMM3G next to see how this goes.

[Stlhead]

Hey brother, I am not shouting, or even worked up. Just trying to add what little I can to the discussion as well. In the end I will defer to whatever the match directors decide without complaint. If somehow my posts have been taken as adversarial or confrontational please excuse me, neither where intended.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Stlhead

[kellyn]

Kelly & Sean,

Don't beat up on me too badly yall! I'm just thinking outloud...trying to get some discussion going, supposing things, ya know??? Trying to keep it light, don't need to get into a shouting match... you get my drift?

jj

No shouting but YOU wanted discussion!

And check out my awesome score on Stage 3 of that Rio match! 210 seconds in penalties. Beat that with your red dots and iron sights!

[Alaskapopo]

Talk about 2 steps forward, 1 step back.

What is the most common configuration of rifle in military, law enforcement, and civilian use??? A carbine with a red dot and some kind of Back Up Iron Sight behind it. If the price of competing in Tactical Iron is not being able to use a back up sight as appropriate because the sight died or because the shooter can make better use of it at range, what is the point of allowing them in Tac Iron at all?

3 Gun stage design has stagnated. It has gotten to the point where for the most part, stages are designed AROUND a particular type of equipment/capabilities than general shooting challenge. Why is Tactical Scope the most popular division? Because it is best combination of price efficiency in gear + inherent ease of use on stages. Thus making it the best combination of affordable fun. Now that so many people are invested in a particular type of equipment (variable or fixed scopes) with limited eye releif, it seems like there is no desire to push the envelope and expose the weaknesses of that particular set up.

This is what the Ozark rules state and we will be glad to answer for ourselves:

6.8.3 Rifles may be equipped with mechanical sights or 1x optics only. Only one sighting system may be used. BUIS may be on the gun but must remain folded. In the event the electronic sight goes down the RO must be notified before the stage starts. At this time the electronic sight must be removed for the remainder of the match and the BUIS can be used. Either a fixed front or rear sight may be on the gun, but not both at the same time.

Im not sure why this is confusing or a bad idea. And dont think we just decided to invoke the good idea fairy rule. This was discussed off site with other MD's and shooters. Dont be surprised to see this exact wording again.

As your rule is written I could have multiple iron sights or multiple red dots. I regularly see Tac-Iron shooters with either JP sights on the side of their handguard, or another front post closer in on the barrel zeroed for close range. Are they not going to be allowed to use that set up either?

Do you want to condition the people who actually carry rifles with red dots to just stop if their dots die while shooting your match? I realize 3 gun is a game, but if we are going to divorce ourselves from all sense of practicality, why are we even shooting at targets that are vaguely shaped like humans in scenarios often based to some degree on real world events?

As a dead dot is the most likely scenario, zeroing with the dot in between the irons is what most people should be doing. Removing the red dot entirely just screwed the zero at range.

Matches stop being both intellectually interesting and fun when I have to think about rules about how I can actually use my equipment on a stage that wouldn't apply anywhere else not being able to flip up a back up iron sight when my sight dies or gets trashed is in the same category of absurdity as not being able to rest on a vertical grip directly on a barricade or go prone off mag cinched mags. If you don't want people doing it, simply don't allow that equipment in whatever division rather than putting stipulations on it.

I would tend to agree, that most if not all Iron sight shooters do not have a back up set of irons on their gun just in case. So keeping with the trend a SINGLE sight system was instituted in the original thought. Its up to you to decide how much trust you wish to place in electronics, you can also go with a non battery reflex sight or a reticle sight and not have to rely on electronics totally. if you feel a optic sight is the way to go then why would you NEED back up irons?????????

trapr

Because shit happens, and if your stuff is going to break it will be at a match. Aside from dots failing, if the lens gets filled with mud (take a fall) or sand (Parma dust storm comes to mind) or rain (Tiger Valley hurrinado) the fastest thing to do is rip it off the gun and keep going with irons (though if you did zero with the dot in place, it will shift slightly, still better than NO sight picture).

Thanks for posting this. You are dead on. A fair number of people rather they be cops or military buffs want to shoot their guns in three gun. Why make a rule that is contrary to real life. I run back up irons on all my rifles rather they are for the game or real life. Anything can fail. And if you allow everyone to do its there is no advantage or loop hole.

Pat

[RiggerJJ]

Hey brother, I am not shouting, or even worked up. Just trying to add what little I can to the discussion as well. In the end I will defer to whatever the match directors decide without complaint. If somehow my posts have been taken as adversarial or confrontational please excuse me, neither where intended.

Kelly & Sean,

Don't beat up on me too badly yall! I'm just thinking outloud...trying to get some discussion going, supposing things, ya know??? Trying to keep it light, don't need to get into a shouting match... you get my drift?

jj

No shouting but YOU wanted discussion!

And check out my awesome score on Stage 3 of that Rio match! 210 seconds in penalties. Beat that with your red dots and iron sights!

Oh I know you guys wern't shouting or trying to be, whats that big word you used Sean? Adversarial? I was just wanting to, ya know, throw out some (what I cosider) out of the box thoughts that have popped into my pea brain recently...

On that line, Kelly you say the big difference is sight radius. what about this;

(I keep using the "if, then" computer programing jargon)

If 1x = iron, then 1x along with a scope (in Tac Scope) = irons along with a scope???

jj

[Stlhead]

JJ I think I know where you are going. So if a 1x optic is equivalent to iron sights, then adding a 1x optic on the side of a scope tac rifle should be equivalent to adding a set of irons to the side. I see your logic and agree that they would seem to be equivalent. I don't shoot that division, so I have little if any standing to offer an opinion, but it would not bother me if 1x optics where allowed to be placed on all long guns in whatever quantities or locations in place of irons. I don't see the addition of red dots in place of iron effecting the balance of power in modern 3 gun. The arms race argument could get drug out, but with the price of cutting edge low power variable scopes these days I don't think it would have any merit.

[Chills1994]

if you can attach it to your AR and can bring it to the line, I say shoot it!

(trying to inject some levity here )

[bigbrowndog]

JJ, using that logic then, taking the popular magnifier that is not considered an additional optic in the tac op division, so basically you could say its not an optic, then it should be allowed in the iron sight division because its not an optic?????????

Yet it isn't!!!! go figure?????

personally I feel the biggest drawback to using most standard 1x optics is the coating that is used on the lenses,..........it does not allow good definition on targets beyond 150yds, especially when there is little to no contrast between the target and the background.

trapr

[kellyn]

On that line, Kelly you say the big difference is sight radius. what about this;

(I keep using the "if, then" computer programing jargon)

If 1x = iron, then 1x along with a scope (in Tac Scope) = irons along with a scope???

jj

JJ I am countering your argument which seems to state that if you allow 1X optics on rifles, then it results in some sort of slippery slope to allow 1X optics on pistols and shotguns. I am saying that it is not the same thing as the impact of an optical sight is different on each weapon, with the impact being the least on rifles. You lost me with the computer jargon, I call IT if I have a tech issue. We have allowed optics on rifles in Tactical Scope without some slippery slope into allowing them on pistols and shotguns - that is called Open division.

Philosophically, I actually do have some opposition to 1X optics in Tac Iron BUT I think the practical benefits FAR outweigh those concerns. It will increase a participation in a dying division. Face it, very few people like to shoot irons (and I happen to be one of them!) Plus if we can get some sort of common ground rules in these major matches, it will filter down to the local matches. Local matches should have a division wherein the most common style of rifle: an AR with a red dot and BUIS is competitive. This will increase local participation and improve new shooter satisfaction spreading 3 gun joy throughout the land. Children will laugh and sing. Benny can be the king of a new division (or so he thinks). Dogs and cats will live together in harmony. It will be great.

[SinistralRifleman]

JJ, using that logic then, taking the popular magnifier that is not considered an additional optic in the tac op division, so basically you could say its not an optic, then it should be allowed in the iron sight division because its not an optic?????????

I don't think the argument in Tac Scope isn't that it isn't an optic, its that it does not function on its own as a sighting device. The end result is functionally the same as a variable power scope (and most will argue worse for the purposes of 3 gun than a variable).

[Mike P]

Kelly said:

"This division has my 100% support and I hope all the match directors come around to adopting it. I would note that ALL of the good iron sight shooters that I am aware of support the division (Kurt, Pat, myself, Robby Johnson, Trapr, Mike P) and really have no worries about competing against red dot/1X sight or rifles with 2, 3, 4 or 5 sets of sights on them."

I'm pretty sure you mean Mike Pinto, but thanks anyhow.

I do agree with the inclusion of RDS in Limited, but I am more inclined toward the whole hog method as opposed to the either or. I see the rds and irons as being complimentary and offering options to the shooter. Its not bloody likely that anything will change close to the top, but it should prove interesting farther down.

This is not to say that I believe there should be some all encompassing rule binding a MD to this or that method of implementation or even some other method of inclusion.

As long as what is and isn't allowed is as clearly stated as the Ozark rules its all good.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Mike P

[Chuck Anderson]

JJ, using that logic then, taking the popular magnifier that is not considered an additional optic in the tac op division, so basically you could say its not an optic, then it should be allowed in the iron sight division because its not an optic?????????

Yet it isn't!!!! go figure?????

Sorry Trapper, your logic is a bit flawed on this one. It's not considered a separate sighting device. All it does is add magnification, like the other variable powered scopes that are already allowed in that division. The Limited RDS rules specifically state, both in Ozark and USPSA that it's only allowed to have a 1x optic. Throwing a magnifier behind will not be allowed. Tac ops allow you to have one optic sighting system, you're choice of magnification. If you want to throw a Premier Reticles 5-25 on the rifle, go for it.

[StealthyBlagga]

By the way, some months back we started allowing red dot optics in Tac Iron for our monthly 3-gun match at Rio Salado (home of the SMM3G). Participation in Tac Iron has jumped considerably with this rule change, with the increase coming from both Tac Scope defectors and from newbies who have never tried 3-gun before. In this month's match, we had more Tac Iron folks than Open folks.... this is the first time I can recall this happening .

[abn-rgr]

This is the problem I see with allowing more than one sighting system. This is a competition, not real life. I can see guys with EOtech set for the long range and j dots on a 45 for the close stuff. Is this legit?? Why not have 3 or 4 red dots as long as they are 1X. And all you guys that keep talking about "real world" rifles set ups, Ill see ya on my next deployment.....