.308 and .223 in the same division?

[Bryan 45]

USPSA minor/major scoring doesn't work well w/ 3 gun since major has an advantage only on paper targets and most targets over 50 yards at a 3 gun match are steel.

What if scoring for a match incorporated the FB3G HM of 1 "A" per paper but also extended this to steel. Minor calibers must hit steel twice per target, major just once.

Would it work, or would it lean too far toward favoring major cartridges?

[AFH]

I have shot some matches scored this way, and find that such a system heavily favors the major caliber.

Andy

[elkboy]

With all the various types of steel targets available today, I don't see how this would work in most situations. I would hate to RO a match where I had to change thought processes according to caliber. My vote would be stay with different divisions.

[EkuJustice]

I say it would heavily favor the major caliber rifles and the farther out the shot, the more it would favor them.

[bigbrowndog]

look at the scoring that HPSC is planning on using.

I actually find it funny that it seems to be completely unthinkable to favor the heavy/major caliber but there seems to be no issue with favoring the smaller/minor caliber.

Trapr

Edited January 24, 2011 by bigbrowndog

[EkuJustice]

At 1 hit on steel for Major and 2 for minor, once you start getting distance it will really put the minor guys in the hole. You alaredy are shooting minor on paper targets so less points. In pistol, do you require minor guys hit a piece of steel twice? Major is basically dead in 3gun with the exceptiion of HM. I would guess in non HM probibally 95+percent of the guys are shooting minor. If someone wants to shoot a major PF rifle there is always HM where everyone has one run it in the other classes like the AMU guys are doing and get the extra points on paper

[dcloudy777]

I've been puzzling along these lines for a few months now. I think the 1 "A-B" zone hit is a no-brainer, I'd like to see it extended to 8-round .45 ACP for pistol targets in all divisions as well. As for the steel, I think altering existing long-range designs could work. For example:

Take a standard MGM flash target and add a second target "arm" to the main axle, using a bearing so that it can rotate independently from the main target. The second target is weighted so that only a "HM" hit will move it (a simple large bolt could be welded to the back, and nuts could be used to adjust the weight). The idea is that a "HM" hit on either target area will activate the flash, but a "minor" round has to hit the smaller area. The more powerful round has a greater neutralization zone (kinda like real life). I've figured out ways to make most long-rang targets work like this, but I don't even know how to begin to make targets...

DanO

[Bryan 45]

Ryan, my idea would be to cut down on the number of divisions- not eliminate anything- just incorporate.

DanO- I like thinking outside the box, but that sounds like one big range equipment malfunction ready to happen. Plus the minor shooters are going to be hearing solid steel hits and not getting it called, which usually leads to an arguement with the RO. I wouldn't want to work a stage with this type target.

Trapr- I looked over the HPSC web site but couldn't find the rules. Got a link? I'm interested in seeing what you guys are doing, even though I can't make it for the match (UNFORTUNATELY!).

[bigbrowndog]

HPSC scoring: Time plus, MINOR: 1a/b=minus .25second and target neut., 2 c's=target neut., d's=plus .5 second. MAJOR: 1a/b/c=minus .25 second target neut., d's=plus .5 second. the only thing major gets is a target neutralized with a single C, as opposed to 2 C's with minor, however its our thought that that small addition should equalize the benefit that minor has with ammo capacity and recoil over major.

trapr

[Charles Bond]

Unless and until we have some data which we generate from some of the great 3 gun shooters running identical stages with both major and minor rifles, any rule set we devise is going to incorporate some value judgement of the author which may or may not be valid. For example: does anyone really think that a 100 lb small framed lady is going to be able to run a heavy caliber as fast as a minor caliber? But we do not change the rules of football because of size.

If we produced some clasification stages, we would have this data over a period of time but at least the 3 gunners who post here are opposed to classifications. But classifications produce more data other than just who gets a trophy. Having a historical frame of refernce gives us data on shooting improvement and how equipment works head to head among other things.

On the other hand it might be as simple as using something like the PRO vs AM format or saying that all major shooters get to engage the targets 15% closer. Whatever it is, it is there so let's not say it can not be done. Should the USPSA power factor be adjusted? Perhaps. But having different calibers shoot in different divisions hinders rather than promotes grow of 3 gun.

Another "option" might be to say that 2 of your 3 guns must be major and you get to pick. So if you wanted to shoot a heavy metal rifle, that would clear you to use a minor shotgun or pistol. Want to use a 223? Use a pistol in 45 caliber. And if you choose to shoot all 3 guns as major, you get some statistical advantage calculated into your score like for example 3%.

We can shoot heads up and solve lots of match administration problesms and this forum has the talent to craft a way to do so.

[DyNo!]

I personally don't there there are too many divisions. Having four doesn't seem that bad (Open, Limited1x, Tac-Ops, HM1x). You bump it to five divisions if you make provisions for HMOps. Having the bar set to major for HM makes sense to me just like having the bar set at minor for production in USPSA.

[Bryan 45]

Charles- I ain't shootin' from no ladies tees! (nothing against ladies or golfers)

[Mike P]

I think shooting HM heads up would work. Most of the top HM shooters, or iron shooters would play (again IMO) if there were no advantage or disadvantage in mag capacity. Using Trapper's scoring method does sort of "level the playing field" in that regard, but increasing the legal mag capacity for heavy pistols and rifles and doing away with the pump SG requirement in addition to the scoring methodlogy would REALLY make a .308/hm competitive heads up. A little bit of rule tweakage, and some good stage design would make the .308 competitive in the hands of the best HM shooters. In fact in the best hands, it is probably pretty competitive anyway.

This would open the other can of worms about what HM REALLY is though from a purely purists standpoint.....

[Chills1994]

as far as growing 3 gun...let me throw this out there to see if it sticks...LOL!

take your el cheapo AK 47 clone in 7.62X39mm in whatever barrel length is standard for cheapo AK'S, load it up with cheap steel cased Bear or Wolf ammo and then shoot it over the chrono...

set that as your new power factor floor for making major. ( I know one of those manufacturers makes two different loads...like a 150 grainish bullet and then a 123 grainish load...go with whatever PF's the lowest.)

I think we could get more guys out there to at least dabble in 3 gun if the price point for entry wasn't so steep.

$400 for an AK versus $1,000 on up plus plus for an AR. and with the surplus AK ammo out there they don't have to reload.

and I ASSuming that possibly once they have whetted their appetites in 3 gun enough with the AK they will want to move onto "go faster" gear.

and make the scoring like Trapr said. one AK hit in the C zone or better = neutralized.

I know a few guys who own AK's but are intimidated by guys shooting lighter recoiling and more accurate AR's....so they don't come out and shoot.

[Chills1994]

on the other hand...if you wanna suck the remaining life right out of USPSA 3 gun, then yeah, go right ahead and implement a classification system.

a lot of big names will be like "SEE YA!"

we've all seen the Magpul Dynamics videos or the Viking Tactics videos on YouTube...if we want to be like those guys, we can run their drills on our own time.

let's just let the top of the results pages at the major 3 gun matches speak for themselves.

the Magpul and Viking Tactics guys can meet us out there too as far as I am concerned.

[kellyn]

as far as growing 3 gun...let me throw this out there to see if it sticks...LOL!

take your el cheapo AK 47 clone in 7.62X39mm in whatever barrel length is standard for cheapo AK'S, load it up with cheap steel cased Bear or Wolf ammo and then shoot it over the chrono...

set that as your new power factor floor for making major. ( I know one of those manufacturers makes two different loads...like a 150 grainish bullet and then a 123 grainish load...go with whatever PF's the lowest.)

I think we could get more guys out there to at least dabble in 3 gun if the price point for entry wasn't so steep.

$400 for an AK versus $1,000 on up plus plus for an AR. and with the surplus AK ammo out there they don't have to reload.

and I ASSuming that possibly once they have whetted their appetites in 3 gun enough with the AK they will want to move onto "go faster" gear.

and make the scoring like Trapr said. one AK hit in the C zone or better = neutralized.

I know a few guys who own AK's but are intimidated by guys shooting lighter recoiling and more accurate AR's....so they don't come out and shoot.

I don't think the guys shooting AKs are schooled enough in the rules that such a minor tweak in scoring would make the AK shooter on the fence all of a sudden say "since I make Major, well now I'm going to shoot me some 3 gun!" Unless the stages are really made substantially easier, 3 gun will never be really be AK friendly, at least until the AK system becomes much more shootable. Major or minor, it is still hard to shoot most AKs past 100 much less on a steel plate at 300! Yes I know it happens on the internet all the time but it is one of those things that I just don't see in practice ... and we have had a lot of guys try at Rio Salado.

I don't really think that the scoring system can be evened out to make .308s competitive against .223s unless the system becomes so skewed that a .308 is needed for 3 gun. That would be very counter productive.

I have run matches wherein I tweaked the scoring to make .308s more competitive, i.e. 1 A, B or C hit would neutralize with .308 whereas it took 1 A or 2 hits anywhere with .223. .223s still won as I would expect them to. I did this as I did not want to have a seperate heavy metal class for those matches.

If we are going to be shooting a lot of .308s, I think they best have a seperate division OR the .308 competitors just need to expect to be less competitive.

[Chills1994]

self-resetting steel targets at 100 yards and out...way out....don't know the difference between major and minor. a hit is a hit.

I think for the most part here we are talking about paper 100 yards and closer.

and you'd be surprised by what some of the guys I have run into at matches have told me about the rules.

"ahhh...I'm running my AK today with a Burris fast fire even though I know I will still be scored minor" I remember one guy saying.

I think he knew for steel plates at 200 yards and farther the AK's (or the ammo's) were going to be lacking in the accuracy department.

so that's where I left myself an out in my first post about guys cutting their teeth first and then later buying the go faster/shoot better gear.

I take it we are trying to grow this sport at the local club match level...where it is "entry-level"...equipment price wise I don't know what would be more entry level than an AK and steel cased surplus ammo.

[Stlhead]

I think that .308 should get an advantage. If you are willing to burn twice the powder and launch three times the lead you should get a scoring boost of some sort. The logic that is used to support the minor preference in rifle is exactly opposite of the logic used to support the major preference in pistol. What about the three legged stool? Why not just get rid of major and minor completely, heck why even chrono at all? If it won't knock over the steel then too damn bad. Competitors could run whatever they want for ammo,. There is no consistent way to make major and minor equitable, no matter how you shake it out one will always have an advantage over the other. So either they get split out and scored separate or the whole major and minor argument (and waste of time and effort) should go away. Or how about open must be major, limited can be minor and scope tac had to have one of each competitor to choose? Lots of options but who decides what is best? Will it be best? Will it be better than what we have now? But, if the matches are all full now why should we even consider changing anything?

There seems to be little or no demand for HM or any other major rifle division for that matter, so why do we even spend the effort to discuss it. Long term unless something is done (and I do not know what) I see 3 gun becoming a three if not two division affair, Open, Scope tac, and possibly limited.

[Bryan 45]

I should have added that I was only thinking about match management when I brought this up. If match staff spend 15% of their time dealing with issues related to divisions and we go from 5 divisions to 3, that would be 6% more time they could use to improve stages, props, targets, sponsors, etc. I have no experience running a match, so if I'm over estimating the amount of time required for division issues than it may be a mute point.

3G seems to be growing at a steady pace, I don't think changing the rules is going to help draw shooters into matches at this point. Some shooters simply aren't interested in having their skills tested on the clock, in front of an audience. Others think games are silly. To each his own. We'll still let them come play when they finally come around.

[StealthyBlagga]

Why are we obsessing about "leveling the playing field" for major caliber ? The playing field is already level in Heavy Metal division. I say keep the division separate as they are, and let the market decide which divisions folks like shooting in.

The biggest step towards increased participation, in my opinion, has been the recent move by many matches to allow red dots in the previously atrophied TacIron/Limited division. We made this change mid-2010 and immediately saw a sharp uptick in participation. I think what we need now is a period of stability in the rules, with perhaps an eye to more harmonization over the next few years.

[Chills1994]

you can't please everbody (shrugs shoulders)

[SinistralRifleman]

At the Independence Day match last year we ran one steel stage where battle rifle cartridges only needed half as many hits. The stage times were pretty similar between .308s and .223s. We did require a lot of awkward shooting positions though.

[Charles Bond]

I should have added that I was only thinking about match management when I brought this up. If match staff spend 15% of their time dealing with issues related to divisions and we go from 5 divisions to 3, that would be 6% more time they could use to improve stages, props, targets, sponsors, etc. I have no experience running a match, so if I'm over estimating the amount of time required for division issues than it may be a mute point.

3G seems to be growing at a steady pace, I don't think changing the rules is going to help draw shooters into matches at this point. Some shooters simply aren't interested in having their skills tested on the clock, in front of an audience. Others think games are silly. To each his own. We'll still let them come play when they finally come around.

Bryan I think you are spot on with your first paragraph. Just going to random prize distribution frees up a ton of match headaches at a critical time in the match which is why I suspect the AR15/Brownells Rockcastle Match is doing it in their pro/am.

I do however disagree with your second paragraph. Doing something like throwing the AK/SKS rifle into major will accelerate growth especially on the local level. While I suspect that we would see them shortly show up with an AR in 7.62x39, you have to get them to the local match to hook them into taking the next step up.

I also do not like that under the 308 minimum for HM it leaves the 6.8 no where to play. We saw many more 6.8 offerings at SHOT this year. Under prevailing 3G rules the only place for the 6.8 is in USPSA matches. I can see how some of the 308 shooters might not like the lesser major rounds in HM but let us not fix that by going to minor, HM Lite, and HM. There is a way to make them all play together and this forum is full of folks who have the experience to make that happen.

[Bryan 45]

Charles, while I wouldn't want to get shot with a 6.8, 7.62x39, .223, or .22LR, what is major about these cartridges? I don't even like that USPSA major is so low at 320. HM and major scoring are about POWER, and these cartridges don't have it. (In comparision to 7.62x51) At what point do we abandon the principles our sport was founded on to appease the manufacturers of new products?

[Mike P]

Charles, while I wouldn't want to get shot with a 6.8, 7.62x39, .223, or .22LR, what is major about these cartridges? I don't even like that USPSA major is so low at 320. HM and major scoring are about POWER, and these cartridges don't have it. (In comparision to 7.62x51) At what point do we abandon the principles our sport was founded on to appease the manufacturers of new products?

I agree, the 320 PF is ridiculously low, as is 165 for a .45cal. It does seem odd though, at least to me, that in oulaw matches most require the two calibers and not enforce ANY power factor. At least uspsa TRIES to enforce a PF even if it so low as to be silly.

At this point, HM is HM in name only, but as long as it is, when I choose to shoot in that division, I'll run light loads.