Rules and Scoring for 3 Gun

[Jim Norman]

100 points per stage makes ALL stages equal. 10 seconds or 180, 1 shot or 50.

Want to make is 100, 125, 150? 100, 150, 200? 100, 200, 300? no argument, it all works out one way or the other. 100, 125, 150 is probably best of the three, it rewards more match points to more complex stages, but no o many more that it skews the match the same way pure time plus can. A balance of stages, say 3 1 gun, 3 two gun and 3 three gun also goes a long way towards balancing out the match.

[ArmdCtzn]

The scoring needs to be quick and easy, you have to keep shooters shooting.

I like IMG scoring, but even that could be a little simpler. Just say five

seconds per miss. I've seen people get confused about FTN, TNE, and FTE.

Five seconds per miss and an extra five for not seeing the target at all, done.

If you want to encourage more accurate shooting, you can do that with targets, hard cover, and no-shoots.

I do like the idea of each stage being 100 points and the final results tallied around that. I think each stage should be equally important in the final results.

I hate USPSA hit factor scoring, it's like Chinese Arithmetic, and I don't like IDPA scoring either. I get IDPA scoring's philosophy, but it adds too much time to a match to be worth it. Everybody is there to SHOOT, not score, so the less time spent scoring the better.

[prreed10]

I've only shot a handful of big multigun matches, but I've run a dozen or so local ones. Our first match was IDPA style scoring with big penalties for FTE's or Misses at the long targets. It took forever to shoot and score these matches. This year, we went to IMGA scoring. At our last match, we shot the same number of stages with similar round counts 3 hours faster than the previous match.

We currently use this stage value breakdown:

1 gun stage 100pts

2 gun stage 130pts

3 gun stage 150pts

We'll also add a bonus stage from time to time where you can accumulate points based on how many targets you can hit before time runs out. We also use a 120 second par time to speed things up a bit. To bring the accuracy into play, we use no shoots and hard cover.

I am shooting a USPSA scored match at the end of October - going to be interesting to see the differences first hand.

[ArmdCtzn]

I've been thinking about the scoring of targets, and I like encouraging accuracy, so I like the "Seiler Scoring System":

A target is considered neutralized if it has:

One A or B hit OR two C hits

If a target is engaged, but not neutralized, add:

One second for each C hit

Two seconds for each D hit

Five seconds for each miss

If a target is not engaged, add fifteen seconds.

Edited September 19, 2011 by ArmdCtzn

[Chills1994]

another alternative is to go with par times for each stage like how Phil Strader does his Pro-Am match, where your score is going to be some whole number of targets you neutralized, but just right off the bat, I am thinking that people would just sling a shot at some long range rifle targets quickly and then move onto the targets they are guaranteed to hit, the pistol and shotgun stuff.

[kellyn]

First off, I 100% support the idea that equipment rules should be made consistent. Tac Scope (or Open, or HM or Tac Iron/Limited)gear at match A should be the same as in Match B should be the same as Match C etc. etc.

I appreciate the arugment that IMGA is quick and easy. It is. It also rewards very sloppy shooting. It is a scoring system in which 2 D hits is called good shooting. In fact, 2 D hits may be great shooting as it can be done very quickly. Anywhere else: USPSA, IDPA, LE training, Mil training, such sloppy shooting is penalized. You could win an IMGA match and never even hit the A zone!

IMGA scored matches have long struggled with making long targets worthwhile. Take Stage 5 as AR15 Pro Am. You could easily shoot 70-80% of the top score by simply firing 4 rounds at the LR targets w/o really engaging them (and then you get into issues as to what is an engagement!). Sure it was not the way to win the stage but it was safe and easy and carried no risk. Superstition Mountain constantly struggles with this issue. Witness the "Burkett" stages of old and even the mysteriously tossed Stage 7 of the last SMM3G.

Talk of having some smaller steel targets or some more hostage scenarios out there does not really address these issues as BY FAR MOST of the targets in any match will be IPSC Metric targets.

These issues are solved by Horner scoring which requires that the shooter actually place accurate hits on EVERY target and that the shooter actually engage and hit the long range rifle targets.

I don't necessarily agree with making the stages worth different point values based on number of guns. I agree that all stages should be 100 points. That being said, stages should not be so short in duration that 1 second equals a massive amount of points. I would say 20 to 30 seconds is about as short as a stage should take under the 100 point system.

I also like San Angelo-ized Comstock scoring but I am against major/minor in 3 gun. It will not be good for the sport if we all have to purchase some .30 AMU Super Gremlin rifle where brass costs $1.00 a piece and nuclear scientists have to load the ammo (Coming soon: Hornady's .30 Super Gremlin Superperformance where every match - local or major -will cost $500 just in rifle ammo!). Sure the hardcore will all get them but it will just kill newcomer participation and make an already expensive sport that much more expensive. 5.56 and 9mm are the reality and we should gear our sport around them. They relatively cheap, low recoiling, fun to shoot and even proven in battle.

[dcloudy777]

Okay, I'll throw in. I certainly see the value of a standardized rule set governing equipment divisions, but don't really see much of an upside in doing the same thing for scoring. I like the simplicity of IMGA, and the "no accuracy needed" problem can be solved with smaller targets, no shoots, etc. I like the idea of stiffer penalties for long range targets, provided the targets are "hittable" for most shooters (even the no-skill trigger pullers like me).

DanO

Edited September 20, 2011 by dcloudy777

[Mike P]

I'm in favor of NRA scoring, aka "walking bullseye". It isn't any harder to score it just penalizes crappy marksmanship more.

As far as it goes though, I have so far been able to read and understand the rules and scoring methods for the matches I intend to shoot.

It just doesn't matter a lot if you know up front.

[DyNo!]

If anyone thinks that two anywhere matches aren't about accuracy, they didn't shoot Ozark this year .

Ozark required as much accuracy as Blue Ridge yet one was IMGA and one was time plus.

I think that IMGA has the flexability to be used in hoser stages and technical ones. Time plus forces you to slow down on paper which isn't as action packed in my opinion. The way it looks when we shoot is very important.

Edited September 20, 2011 by DyNo!

[1chota]

You keep going like this JJ and I am going to put your name in for 3 GUN CZAR!!!!

I would like us to keep this stuff simple. You want more accuracy on paper up close???? Don't use draconian

scoring methods...just use smaller targets.

Don't want shooters to "blow-off" long range targets...add time bonuses or if you must time penalties.

Simple to score makes for faster stage clearance between shooters.

As soon as you start getting hammered for hit outside of the "A" zone that is when overlays and target disputes

begin and the clock between shooter is running.

And speaking of rules....

I am going to get bit hard for this little gem.

If "Our" thinking is going to be "if it ain't written down in the rules, then it must be OK" is the REASON

rules books get BIG!

I know how to play fair and do...do you??? I am not pointing fingers here just putting this out for digestion.

OK kids hammer away.

Patrick

+100 What he said.

[Bryan 45]

Cameron, when you get a little older, you'll be less concerned about how you look.

(Now we are even!)

[1chota]

...

jj wrote:

...The Adding total time method just makes the longest stage the deciding stage.

Huh?

I'm sorry, but you lost me there.

I take it you haven't really eyeballed any scores from major IDPA matches before, then???

Again, you have the raw data there expressed as a time. In my opinion, it is NOT in need of any other superfluous manipulation...which typically...all that does exaggerates results or spreads.

Its quite simple really; For IDPA matches I suppose it works ok, don't really know, and don't really care. I don't agree at all with the IDPA concepts...but thats another story...

Total time scoring may work for a pistol match, IF all the stages have the same number of targets and take about the same amount of time to run. Where you get into trouble trying to press a 3gun match into that mold is usually the stages are different in length. Take a match with a 24 round burner shotgun stage that takes about 15-20 seconds to complete, and a long 3 gun stage that takes 2-3 minutes to complete, all the other stages are somewhere inbetween. The longer stage will have more weight in the total match when using total time, and the order of finish in that stage will probably be darn close to the order of finish of the match. And if you do poorly and take 4 minutes to complete that long stage, then you are totally out of any kind of decent finish because you are a minute behind everyone.

normalizing all stages to 100 match points turns each stage into a single challenge of itself. single gun burner stages, long 3 gun stages, doesn't matter because each is worth the same number of match points, and they are all different challenges which is what we are trying to test at a 3 gun match; the shooter's totally abilities with all combos of all 3 guns in all kinds of different scenarios, short, long, etc. if you win a 30 second stage by 3 seconds that gives you 10 matchs points over 2nd place. If you do the same in a total time match, those 3 seconds basically give you nothing, because in the longer stages 3 seconds isn't worth much.

More examples;

3 person, 3 stage match, Total Time scoring;

shooter A - stage 1-30sec ,stage 2-50sec, stage 3-120, total 200sec

shooter B - stage 1-27sec (stage win), stage 2-49sec (stage win), stage 3- 130sec, total 206sec

shooter C - stage 1-32sec, 2-52sec, 3-115sec (stage win), total 199sec MATCH WINNER

Or by normalized scoring;

shooter A stage 1 90 points, stage 2 98 points, stage 3 95 points, total 283 match points

shooter B stage 1 100 points, stage 2 100 points, stage 3 88 points, total 288 match points MATCH WINNER

shooter C stage 1 84 points, stage 2 94 points, stage 3 100 points, total 278 match points

In both matches, shooter A was the most consistent, and took 2nd place in both. GOOD SHOW!

Shooter C was not at all consistent, but won Total Time because he did so well in the long stage. Should he have won the match? I say no.

Shooter B won 2 stages but was last place in the 3rd stage. He won the normalized match, but was last place in the total time match because he lost the longest stage.

This is kind of a short match with only 3 stages, but you get the idea. With more stages the 88% that shooter B got will probably be his worse stage, but again, that total time problem of the longest stage being the deciding factor pretty much does him in.

jj

+1000 what he said.

[Chills1994]

kellyn wrote:

...I also like San Angelo-ized Comstock scoring but I am against major/minor in 3 gun....

Tell me/us more about this "San Angelo-ized Comstock scoring".

I am aslo against major/minor scoring, at least how USPSA does it.

I previously posted that maybe the major PF'ed rifle guys and the major PF'ed pistol guys should be able to skate by with just one hit on paper.

I'm still kicking that idea around in my head.

On the one hand, I don't like how AR/.223 centric everything has become. On the other hand, I am picturing the .223 and 9mm guys boo'ing and hissing the first time they get beat by somebody shooting a .40/.45... .260, 6.8, 7.62X39 (wherever you want major PF to start at?) .30 Gremlin, .308, or a Garand in .30-'06.

There's a lot of pros and cons there.

[1chota]

I just shot the NRA Tactical Police match at Albuquerque. Their scoring system is similar to IDPA, but they score "down". If the hit is cutting the perf, the score is the lower score. They add 2 seconds for C hits, and 4 seconds for D hits.

I shot the Ozark match. The targets were challenging but not that far. (220 yds. max.) however, the shooting positions and the size of the targets made things more dicey. (Like Patrick said, make the targets harder to hit, not so much farther away.) 5" plates with the pistol at 25 yds. sure is one way. Very few paper targets there.

I would like to see the D zone go away.

Edited September 20, 2011 by 1chota

[Chills1994]

jj wrote back on the first page[:/b]

For IDPA matches I suppose it works ok, don't really know, and don't really care. I don't agree at all with the IDPA concepts...but thats another story...

That's kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water, isn't it?

Don't be a-hatin' just because IDPA uses that scoring system.

As it was relayed to me by Robbie Leatham, it was actually our host here Brian Enos who came up with that scoring system first. Not Larry Vickers.

I still don't get all the hate towards time plus.

Every shooter has or had the same chance at succes (or failure) as every other shooter there.

You're tainting the data, in my opinion, by mixing stage points into the picture.

Maybe, possibly, a good compromise is to go with rank points scoring like I mentioned above. Yeah, like some of the CAS'ers use. Maybe put in some tweaks there for guys who leave the match early, they get a DNF for those stages, and their name automatically goes to the bottom in the final results.

[RiggerJJ]

Has nothing to do with hating anyting...the discussion is about total time vs time plus 100 point stages.

Like I said, total time probably works for IDPA, probably because all the stages are short.

But it just doesn't work for 3gun if you want to be fair to the shooters because 3gun almost always has stages that are very different in length.

I wasn't tainting data by mixing in stage points, I COMPARED total time to stage points, showing how total time isn't fair in a match that has stages that are drastically different in length. My example was not as drastic as I have see actual 3gun matches turn out either. Some I have seen with the shortest stage being around 20 seconds and the longest near 4 minutes, which would really skew the results with total time.

Simply put, time plus with normalized stages to 100 works best for 3gun. Why re-invent the wheel?

jj

[RiggerJJ]

random scoring thoughts;

Target size. Stage designer want to slow down the pace in part of a stage? put out 1/2 size ipsc paper targets or 5 inch steel, but do it with some sense. A bank of 10 5inch steel for pistol at 25 yards (or shotgun) is just brutal. I've seen beginner shooters time out on a bank of 10 steel pistol targets at 20+ yards, and not get to shoot the last gun in the stage... 1/2 size ipsc paper/cardboard targets are readily avalable. I used them exclusivly at RM3G on a pistol only stage and they did slow folks down somewhat, but they were only at 3-5 yards so they were pretty easy to hit on the run if the shooter was aiming. The steel on the stage was longer shots and were 10inch and ABC... the stage was featured on 3GN RM3G 1st episode with Jerry and MV going at it...

flying or flipped clays. only a 5 second miss (vs 10seconds for STATIC steel/clays) but still a 15 second FTE. rational here is its still a viable target that is WORTH engaging, but doesn't completly kill your score if the stage has quite a few and you just can't hit an aerial target. (better to practice!!!) Also, the one BB hole thing doesn't fit with aerials, so stepping back to how clay shooters (trap, skeet, sporting clays) score them, they must visably break to score. simple...

all stages worth 100 points, VS 100, 125, 150 point stages dependent on number of guns used on the stage. changing the stage points value on different stages complicates the scoring. The scoring program has to set up with these in mind instead of using a generic scoring program. Also, I just don't see how having a 2 gun stage or 3 gun stage makes the stage any more difficult than a 1 gun stage??? I could put down a monster one gun stage that would have grown men crying after they attempted to shoot it, and have a short 3 gun stage right next to it that was very simple.

again, just some random thoughts...

jj

[gose]

I wasn't tainting data by mixing in stage points, I COMPARED total time to stage points, showing how total time isn't fair in a match that has stages that are drastically different in length. My example was not as drastic as I have see actual 3gun matches turn out either. Some I have seen with the shortest stage being around 20 seconds and the longest near 4 minutes, which would really skew the results with total time.

Simply put, time plus with normalized stages to 100 works best for 3gun. Why re-invent the wheel?

jj

With normalizing you still have the "problem" of any screw-up on a short stage being much more costly than the same screw-up would be on a long stage. Shoot a no-shoot, or have a gun malfunction, or some other minor screw-up on a 20s stage and you're down 20-30 points, but have the same screw-up on a 4 min stage and you're down 2-3%. To me it feels wrong that the short stages have a higher probability of deciding the match than the long stages..

But once again, if stages are designed with this in mind, it's not really an issue.

Though to be honest, I dont really care much what scoring system a certain match uses... If the match is good and I can fit it into my schedule I'll come and shoot

[Tyro Shooter]

Ok

Question

Why do we have to have ONE unified set of 3 Gun or Multi gun rules?

I know someone at he Home oOffice is working hard on a project to come up with “one set of Multi Gun rules” (to increase membership in this growing sport you must have a rule book over 200 pages long). . . I only see this as a way to piss off everybody.

I voted in the poll on page one that I don’t want one set of rules for all three gun matches. (yeah yeah yeah my opinion is worth less than the time that it takes you to finish reading till this point.)

But ( rant mode “on”)

I like the fact that each of the “Outlaw” matches are played by slightly different rules

In my little perverse way I like going to ‘Match X” and playing in their sandbox and their range rule that states ‘No firearms shall be abandoned with ANY live ammo in them”, and then next month I play at major “Match Y” with a slightly different set of rules, then I go to Raton and start all over again. (MGM is in its own league)

If I don’t like the way a match is run or scored because it does not suit my style, I don’t go . . . No hard feelings,

At this point in time all of these matches are full and I’m probably not going to be missed.

Now I’m not going to start Singing and Preaching about “Diversity” makes us better or humming “Kumbaya”. . . .but I personally find the added challenge and the subtle nuances of each of the big Outlaw Matches is why I will drive 1,600 miles round trip for a day and a half 3 gun match.

No matter what the rules are from match to match the people who enjoy this sport and the competition will continue to show up and the ones who whine and use the rules and scoring of the match DuJuor as an excuse as to why they sucked that weekend will continue to do so whether it is for or against Horner, IMG, USPSA, IDPA or . . .whatever the MD’s come up with.

“better bring you your big boy britches if’en yous wants ta play da big boys games. . . . . Skippy”

(Rant mode “Off”

Please let the Flame war correcting my faulty thinking begin . . . Now)

[KentG]

And uspsa rules blow for open

Amen. Open means open. Silly capacity rules shotgun start. Plus no minor/major BS for pistol.

I vote for IMG rules all day long. USPSA rules are fine for pistol matches but I think they are anal for multigun. Personally in multigun the pistol is the 3rd gun for me and some others I feel.

Seems like it's the other way around in USPSA rules where the emphasis is on pistol and rifle shotgun are fillers.

And the totally absurd rules for an IDPA multigun match are a joke. The low legal round count and no open class is a waste of time. Can't say it's a waste of ammo since you don't get to use enough to notice.

Edited September 22, 2011 by tnek

[RiggerJJ]

I wasn't tainting data by mixing in stage points, I COMPARED total time to stage points, showing how total time isn't fair in a match that has stages that are drastically different in length. My example was not as drastic as I have see actual 3gun matches turn out either. Some I have seen with the shortest stage being around 20 seconds and the longest near 4 minutes, which would really skew the results with total time.

Simply put, time plus with normalized stages to 100 works best for 3gun. Why re-invent the wheel?

jj

With normalizing you still have the "problem" of any screw-up on a short stage being much more costly than the same screw-up would be on a long stage. Shoot a no-shoot, or have a gun malfunction, or some other minor screw-up on a 20s stage and you're down 20-30 points, but have the same screw-up on a 4 min stage and you're down 2-3%. To me it feels wrong that the short stages have a higher probability of deciding the match than the long stages..

But once again, if stages are designed with this in mind, it's not really an issue.

Though to be honest, I dont really care much what scoring system a certain match uses... If the match is good and I can fit it into my schedule I'll come and shoot

there-in lies a sort of small hidden problem we have with 3gun matches. having the short, burner, 20 seconds stages AND a 3-4 minute stage in the same major match. some will say the short burner stages are one part of the skills needed to be a winning 3gunner, therefore needs to be tested. I see that point as Gose pointed out above, it can be a game killer, but isn't the shooter responsible for their skills AND their equipment reliability???

Normalizing the stages to 100 points help this, alot!

I kinda lean toward designing longer stages as the answer to short/long stages skewing results. My normal goal is for most stages to average 100-150 seconds, with the really fast shooters just hitting the one minute mark on their fastest runs. I usually end up with one stage with a 5 minute max time thou, most being 180 to 240. At RM3G this year we had 2 times that were under a minute in the enire match, and timeouts were not all that prevelant compared to years past.

jj

Edited September 22, 2011 by RiggerJJ

[Bryan 45]

JJ, after paying for match fees, travel expenses and hotel, those 100 second stages make it all worth it.

20 second stages- not so much.

[DocMedic]

Uspsa will never use time plus at their nationals-no way to deal with major/minor

Best way is to not deal with it at all, and get rid of major/minor for multigun all together.

[dcloudy777]

JJ, after paying for match fees, travel expenses and hotel, those 100 second stages make it all worth it.

20 second stages- not so much.

Bryan, just do what I do and take 100 seconds to shoot 20 second stages. I don't suck... I'm just getting my money's worth!

DanO

Edited September 23, 2011 by dcloudy777

[Bryan 45]

JJ, after paying for match fees, travel expenses and hotel, those 100 second stages make it all worth it.

20 second stages- not so much.

Bryan, just do what I do and take 100 seconds to shoot 20 second stages. I don't suck... I'm just getting my money's worth!

DanO

I like your attitude!