Why not limit rifle rounds?

[MarkCO]

Several of you made some very good points for NOT limiting rifle rounds, thanks!

[ArmdCtzn]

If you want to force mag changes have a standards stage. (Gasp!!!)

Given that 30 plus round magazines are easily and readily available, I'm mildly against any sort of cap on mag limit in Tac or Tac Limited/1X/Iron Sight/Limited division. Stage design will easily nullify any advantage that high cap mags have anyway.

Making 20 rounds the limit to prevent monopodding will simply make me build up the bottom of the 20 rd magazines.

I'm with Kelly. I generally feel that the practical shooting sports are better off with the fewest possible rules. I am very much against adding piecemeal equipment bans just because you frown on a certain piece of equipment - are we turning into the BATFE? Greater-than-30-round magazines are widely and cheaply available nowadays, and are standard equipment on a lot of weapon systems, so I don't see a compelling reason to prohibit them.

There is also the matter of enforcement - ROs can barely keep track of 9 round limits for shotguns and 10 round limits for Production... who is going to determine if the shooter just fired 31 rounds before a reload instead of 30?

Ok, those of you that oppose any restrictions on rifle magazine capacity, do you also oppose the magazine length restrictions on pistol mags? Do you also oppose the common practice of limiting shotguns to nine rounds at the start? I would assume that if you oppose limiting the rifle's capacity, you also oppose limiting the handgun and shotgun.

The logic is simple: in the "Real World" use of weapons (upon which we base many of our rules), handguns are carried as compact personal defense weapons, so size really does matter. I CCW a Glock 27 with 10+1 capacity because a 30-round magazine is simply too impractical for my lifestyle, and I'm sure would be for most cops and soldiers too. The same is true for tube shotguns, where anything with a barrel over about 22 inches starts to get unwieldy. Rifles are much less impacted by magazine size because greater-than-30-round magazines have little, if any, impact on portability or effectiveness. Does this answer your question?

I can accept all that. If that is the reasoning, it seems to me we should limit shotguns by tube length and not by shell capacity, similar to how handguns are limited by magazine length.

In the case of rifles, I think a Beta mag or any drum magazine and any really long stick magazine would violate the spirit of your above statement. It would seem logical then to also limit rifle magazines by length, and maybe width also. I think an AR with a Beta magazine is far more unwieldy than a shotgun with a barrel over 22", to use your example.

I'm not trying to add rules for the sake of rules. I just found it odd that, for example, I can't ghost-load a tenth round into my shotgun but I can shove a Beta mag into my rifle, and wondered what people's opinions are.

I also don't think these kinds of rules are limiting to innovation or acting like the BATFE. We still have open class where the real equipment race is, and should be.

Don't forget, this is a discussion board, and what we have here is a discussion. One that I have found interesting despite other's opinions to the contrary. ;-)

Personally, I'm fine with the common shotgun and pistol rules, and I think I would add a limit of 30 rounds for rifles in tactical. I think it should be left up to individual match directors to decide, of course. I do find myself often wishing I could ghost-load that tenth shell though!

[mpeltier]

After reading this entire thread I am left wondering the motivation of anyone wanting to limit magazine capacity in our rifles. I believe it to be simply a false perception by those who do not have higher capacity mags that they are somehow at a dissadvantage with only 30 rd mags at their disposal. I have been shooting this game long enough to realize I have never been beaten by anyone because they had a higher capacity magazine than I had. There seems to be no end to the "Lets try to level the playing field" crowd, that just don't realize there is no such thing. In this entire thread there is still not one sensible reason to limit rifle rounds.

[MarkCO]

Now Mark, why could you have not said that in like post #2?

[AlamoShooter]

Now Mark, why could you have not said that in like post #2?

Well if this reaches page 22 , I would bet what Mark said in his last line will still be true.

[ArmdCtzn]

After reading this entire thread I am left wondering the motivation of anyone wanting to limit magazine capacity in our rifles. I believe it to be simply a false perception by those who do not have higher capacity mags that they are somehow at a dissadvantage with only 30 rd mags at their disposal. I have been shooting this game long enough to realize I have never been beaten by anyone because they had a higher capacity magazine than I had. There seems to be no end to the "Lets try to level the playing field" crowd, that just don't realize there is no such thing. In this entire thread there is still not one sensible reason to limit rifle rounds.

How about, "Because Beta mags are big, heavy, unwieldy and not very practical and therefore shouldn't be in tactical division." Is that not a sensible reason in your opinion given that shotguns and pistols are limited for similar reasons?

FWIW I have a few Beta mags for my M16, but I've never shot a match where I needed any more than thirty rounds anyway, so I have no perception of

being at a disadvantage at all. I really don't care if everybody in tactical starts using Beta mags, or belt-fed uppers, it just seems inconsistent

to me.

[Alaskapopo]

After reading this entire thread I am left wondering the motivation of anyone wanting to limit magazine capacity in our rifles. I believe it to be simply a false perception by those who do not have higher capacity mags that they are somehow at a dissadvantage with only 30 rd mags at their disposal. I have been shooting this game long enough to realize I have never been beaten by anyone because they had a higher capacity magazine than I had. There seems to be no end to the "Lets try to level the playing field" crowd, that just don't realize there is no such thing. In this entire thread there is still not one sensible reason to limit rifle rounds.

How about, "Because Beta mags are big, heavy, unwieldy and not very practical and therefore shouldn't be in tactical division." Is that not a sensible reason in your opinion given that shotguns and pistols are limited for similar reasons?

FWIW I have a few Beta mags for my M16, but I've never shot a match where I needed any more than thirty rounds anyway, so I have no perception of

being at a disadvantage at all. I really don't care if everybody in tactical starts using Beta mags, or belt-fed uppers, it just seems inconsistent

to me.

I have shot a lot of matches where I needed more than 30 rounds. One match had a stage where you ended up shooting over 86 rifle rounds.

[mpeltier]

After reading this entire thread I am left wondering the motivation of anyone wanting to limit magazine capacity in our rifles. I believe it to be simply a false perception by those who do not have higher capacity mags that they are somehow at a dissadvantage with only 30 rd mags at their disposal. I have been shooting this game long enough to realize I have never been beaten by anyone because they had a higher capacity magazine than I had. There seems to be no end to the "Lets try to level the playing field" crowd, that just don't realize there is no such thing. In this entire thread there is still not one sensible reason to limit rifle rounds.

How about, "Because Beta mags are big, heavy, unwieldy and not very practical and therefore shouldn't be in tactical division." Is that not a sensible reason in your opinion given that shotguns and pistols are limited for similar reasons?

FWIW I have a few Beta mags for my M16, but I've never shot a match where I needed any more than thirty rounds anyway, so I have no perception of

being at a disadvantage at all. I really don't care if everybody in tactical starts using Beta mags, or belt-fed uppers, it just seems inconsistent

to me.

I have shot a lot of matches where I needed more than 30 rounds. One match had a stage where you ended up shooting over 86 rifle rounds.

Me to Pat. That's my point. A reload on long stages (or two) is usually pretty insignificant.There are rare exceptions but generally on an 86 rd field course I will find a few places to reload with no time penalty.

Armdctzn, Exactly my point. Why limit something that by your admission is of no significance? Just because there are such rediculous restrictions (in some but not all rules sets) for pistol and shotgun? Just for consistancy of bad rules is not sensible to me. But that's just my opinion. If a stage designer wants to test magazine changing skill just stipulate that in the stage description.

[latewatch]

After reading this entire thread I am left wondering the motivation of anyone wanting to limit magazine capacity in our rifles. I believe it to be simply a false perception by those who do not have higher capacity mags that they are somehow at a dissadvantage with only 30 rd mags at their disposal. I have been shooting this game long enough to realize I have never been beaten by anyone because they had a higher capacity magazine than I had. There seems to be no end to the "Lets try to level the playing field" crowd, that just don't realize there is no such thing. In this entire thread there is still not one sensible reason to limit rifle rounds.

True Pearls of Wisdom

[ArmdCtzn]

Armdctzn, Exactly my point. Why limit something that by your admission is of no significance? Just because there are such rediculous restrictions (in some but not all rules sets) for pistol and shotgun? Just for consistancy of bad rules is not sensible to me. But that's just my opinion. If a stage designer wants to test magazine changing skill just stipulate that in the stage description.

I didn't realize how many people think the current restrictions on pistol and shotgun in tactical divisions are ridiculous. I was working from the ASSumption that most people were in agreement with the widespread limit of nine in the shotgun and restricting magazine length on pistols. Under that assumption, limiting the rifle to a practical magazine size does make sense. But, if you think that limiting shotgun and pistol capacity are "bad rules", then naturally adding another limit is going to seem like a really stupid idea. That explains the hostility to a new rule on rifles, which really surprised me. Some of the reactions in this thread were very clear about that. ;-)

I get your point, and appreciate the input. My point is that I think of the tactical divisions as using more practical gear, and the open divisions using race gear. Kind of like running street stock at a race. So, to me, it makes sense to limit the shotgun and pistol to keep them within the spirit of tactical division, and for the same reason seems odd that there are rarely any similar restrictions on rifle. Do you see what I'm getting at? We limit shotgun capacity to avoid having great big very non-practical extended mag tubes, we limit pistol mags to avoid having great big very non-practical extended magazines, but we put no restrictions of any kind on rifle magazines and welcome great-big non-practical extended or drum magazines.

I think I may have a misconception of what the goals of tactical division really are.

It seems many people would prefer to not have any restrictions on pistol mags or shotgun capacity within tactical, which I did not expect. I thought of those kinds of restrictions as fundamental parts of the tactical division philosophy, which appears to be incorrect.

[DyNo!]

After reading this entire thread I am left wondering the motivation of anyone wanting to limit magazine capacity in our rifles. I believe it to be simply a false perception by those who do not have higher capacity mags that they are somehow at a dissadvantage with only 30 rd mags at their disposal. I have been shooting this game long enough to realize I have never been beaten by anyone because they had a higher capacity magazine than I had. There seems to be no end to the "Lets try to level the playing field" crowd, that just don't realize there is no such thing. In this entire thread there is still not one sensible reason to limit rifle rounds.

How about, "Because Beta mags are big, heavy, unwieldy and not very practical and therefore shouldn't be in tactical division." Is that not a sensible reason in your opinion given that shotguns and pistols are limited for similar reasons?

FWIW I have a few Beta mags for my M16, but I've never shot a match where I needed any more than thirty rounds anyway, so I have no perception of

being at a disadvantage at all. I really don't care if everybody in tactical starts using Beta mags, or belt-fed uppers, it just seems inconsistent

to me.

I have shot a lot of matches where I needed more than 30 rounds. One match had a stage where you ended up shooting over 86 rifle rounds.

Me to Pat. That's my point. A reload on long stages (or two) is usually pretty insignificant.There are rare exceptions but generally on an 86 rd field course I will find a few places to reload with no time penalty.

Armdctzn, Exactly my point. Why limit something that by your admission is of no significance? Just because there are such rediculous restrictions (in some but not all rules sets) for pistol and shotgun? Just for consistancy of bad rules is not sensible to me. But that's just my opinion. If a stage designer wants to test magazine changing skill just stipulate that in the stage description.

Agreed.

Your pistol magazines should be no more than 140mm - sure, go ahead and load and make ready with your 60 round rifle magazine.

On a 100 second long 3-Gun stage with 50 yards of running (most 3-Gun stages I'd say), a reload is not going to decide who wins and loses.

If you want folks to reload, stipulate it like Kurt and Trapr did at the High Plains rifle match.

Also keep in mind - Open shooters in USPSA generally don't carry multiple 170mm magazines onto a stage. If a magazine length restriction were to be lifted, people would go from 21-23 rounds in their first magazine to 27-29.

Subsequent reloads would stay the same and if the course is more than 25 rounds - people will be reloading anyway or finding A LOT of time to.

Edited January 5, 2012 by DyNo!

[StealthyBlagga]

...My point is that I think of the tactical divisions as using more practical gear, and the open divisions using race gear. Kind of like running street stock at a race. So, to me, it makes sense to limit the shotgun and pistol to keep them within the spirit of tactical division, and for the same reason seems odd that there are rarely any similar restrictions on rifle. Do you see what I'm getting at?...

You start with the assumption that, because 30 round magazines are GI issue and standard on the AR15 platform, anything with larger capacity is somehow "impractical". Your premise is wrong IMHO.

Oh, and FYI, Beta mags are already banned under many Tactical Division rules (including IMA-SMM3G). Much more common and practical are the many box magazines now available in the 40-60 round range. Your argument to ban these is on very shaky ground, even by your own dubious logic.

[ArmdCtzn]

...My point is that I think of the tactical divisions as using more practical gear, and the open divisions using race gear. Kind of like running street stock at a race. So, to me, it makes sense to limit the shotgun and pistol to keep them within the spirit of tactical division, and for the same reason seems odd that there are rarely any similar restrictions on rifle. Do you see what I'm getting at?...

You start with the assumption that, because 30 round magazines are GI issue and standard on the AR15 platform, anything with larger capacity is somehow "impractical". Your premise is wrong IMHO.

Oh, and FYI, Beta mags are already banned under many Tactical Division rules (including IMA-SMM3G). Much more common and practical are the many box magazines now available in the 40-60 round range. Your argument to ban these is on very shaky ground, even by your own dubious logic.

Allowing higher-capacity mags that are generally about the same size as a standard thirty-round mag makes sense.

I think at some point the added weight may become a little extreme, even if the length is similar. I can at least

see the logic in allowing that type of magazine in tactical divisions.

What do you think of the Beta mag restrictions? Are you for 'em or agin' 'em?

[Alaskapopo]

Just my opinion but I think we should leave tactical alone it is the most popular division and people like it the way it is. I personally think more should be done with Limited. Allowing red dots (1x optics) was a good move. I would also like to see a 30 round mag rule there for the rifle simply to make it more affordable for new shooters. I would limit the pistol to limited 10 rules from USPSA and make the shotguns pump 8+1 only. I made a division like this to replace limited at my match last year and it was the most attended division. Mostly all new shooters. As for Open it should be left alone as well and in USPSA they need to drop the 10+1 shotgun rule. But that has been discussed.

Pat

Edited January 6, 2012 by Alaskapopo

[Chuck Anderson]

...My point is that I think of the tactical divisions as using more practical gear, and the open divisions using race gear. Kind of like running street stock at a race. So, to me, it makes sense to limit the shotgun and pistol to keep them within the spirit of tactical division, and for the same reason seems odd that there are rarely any similar restrictions on rifle. Do you see what I'm getting at?...

You start with the assumption that, because 30 round magazines are GI issue and standard on the AR15 platform, anything with larger capacity is somehow "impractical". Your premise is wrong IMHO.

Oh, and FYI, Beta mags are already banned under many Tactical Division rules (including IMA-SMM3G). Much more common and practical are the many box magazines now available in the 40-60 round range. Your argument to ban these is on very shaky ground, even by your own dubious logic.

Allowing higher-capacity mags that are generally about the same size as a standard thirty-round mag makes sense.

I think at some point the added weight may become a little extreme, even if the length is similar. I can at least

see the logic in allowing that type of magazine in tactical divisions.

What do you think of the Beta mag restrictions? Are you for 'em or agin' 'em?

Just out of curiousity, do you think Beta Mags were made for competition use, or the Military? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't competition. If you want to see most of the arguments about this go read the 2011 FNH match thread. Larry wanted to cap it at 30 rounds. It didn't go over well.

[kellyn]

Like a Led, I mean Lead, Zeppelin.

Edited January 6, 2012 by kellyn

[StealthyBlagga]

What do you think of the Beta mag restrictions? Are you for 'em or agin' 'em?

Personally, I am agnostic about Beta mags in the Tactical divisions. As mentioned above, they were developed for the military market, so I don't buy into the "not practical" arguments... as I recall, they were rejected by the military on the basis of robustness and reliability, not bulk/weight/"practicality". I've seen enough of them go tits-up to know I won't run one, but I don't see a compelling reason to ban them. The ban at SMM3G came before I had any role in writing the rules, and, as the drum ban is now a de facto standard across many outlaw matches, I'm not inclined to try to bring them back.

[ClutchUSMC]

Just my .02 but I don't care either as a MD or competitor how many rounds you have in your rifle mag. I have shot a few IDPA style 3 gun matches where you could only load 20, had to shoot from cover, etc. It takes the fun and creativity out of the sport. I like solving the problem the stage presents, not having my hand held and being told to shoot this, then walk over here, now do this, etc.

As far as being "tactical", I laugh whenever I hear it being used in relation to the shooting sports. I always want the biggest gun with the most ammo when the shit hits the fan. If I could ccw a 105 howitzer I would! The idea that making someone change a magazine, or limiting the capacity of a larger magazine isn't tactical. Its just monkeying with the rules.

Have fun, play the game, and reload your rifle whenever you want too. I promise I won't mind if your time goes way up. And lastly, if you really think its an advantage just ask someone at a match. I know I would happily lend someone any of my mags they wanted to use for a stage. I know plenty of other shooters would too, cause I have borrowed gear plenty of times in matches.

Edited January 7, 2012 by ClutchUSMC

[Jim Norman]

My ONLY reasons (2) for wanting to mandate a reload are:

1) It is a skill set that just maybe we should test and in testing all other aspects of shooting. We do test long range, short range, oddball positions, shooting on the move all of which can affect how you place in this game, so to can having to do a reload. You might be the hottest shot in the whole world, but if you can't seat a new magazine in your gun at some point you will find yourself with a very expensive club!

2) from a purely perceptional basis, just maybe there are people out there that feel they are out gunned becasue they don't have a 100 round capacity to shoot a 30 round COF do they don't even get their feet wet. Remember there is not a single person here that didn't at one point shoot heir first match and just maybe feel a little overwhelmed by it all. Add in that you have people starting out with essentially a stock AR, Pistol and SG and seeing the Super Ninja Mall Trooper Squad shooting with every attachment known to the Sportsman's Guide. They feel they needn't even bother as they haven't a chance.

Reason number one is the serious one just in case there was any confusion.

Jim

[DarthMuffin]

I'm for limiting rifle rounds just to try to move some competitors out of tactical. I've been to matches where 90% of the entrants are tactical division. Whether this is a problem and if it's handled by doing something to make tactical less appealing or other divisions more appealing (the nerf/buff school of thought for those online gamers) is what we're here to discuss right?

However, I think limiting mag length (not round count) and type (single or double stack only, no drums) is a good start. Measure a standard 30rd AR mag and add a mm or two as a fudge factor and make that your max length. A length is much easier to enforce than a round count, and adds no load for the RO during the COF. It works for limited/open pistol, right?

30 rds is a lot. If you can't plan out somewhere to reload within 30 rds you're doing it wrong... Even if a 30rd limit doesn't slow you down (from finding a spot to do a "free" mag change) vs a larger mag, it adds another dimension to the stage and it's one more mental piece of the game. Personally I like that part of practical shooting. Open should be the division where you just grab your gun and start [mindlessly?] hosing things down until there are no more targets.

Edited January 7, 2012 by DarthMuffin

[DyNo!]

Open should be the division where you just grab your gun and start [mindlessly?] hosing things down until there are no more targets.

There's no such thing when talking about the folks who will be winning matches.

Otherwise, you can do that in any division and rule set.

Edited January 7, 2012 by DyNo!

[Jim Norman]

I'm for limiting rifle rounds just to try to move some competitors out of tactical. I've been to matches where 90% of the entrants are tactical division. Whether this is a problem and if it's handled by doing something to make tactical less appealing or other divisions more appealing (the nerf/buff school of thought for those online gamers) is what we're here to discuss right?

However, I think limiting mag length (not round count) and type (single or double stack only, no drums) is a good start. Measure a standard 30rd AR mag and add a mm or two as a fudge factor and make that your max length. A length is much easier to enforce than a round count, and adds no load for the RO during the COF. It works for limited/open pistol, right?

30 rds is a lot. If you can't plan out somewhere to reload within 30 rds you're doing it wrong... Even if a 30rd limit doesn't slow you down (from finding a spot to do a "free" mag change) vs a larger mag, it adds another dimension to the stage and it's one more mental piece of the game. Personally I like that part of practical shooting. Open should be the division where you just grab your gun and start [mindlessly?] hosing things down until there are no more targets.

Limiting mag length require we measure. Limiting the number of rounds loaded requires we (or the RO) count. Requiring a mandatory reload After the first shot and prior to the last does none of the above and effectively accomplishes the same thing. Understand I don't think we need this in every COF, I am looking at it as a shooting skill test. If someone wants to go further and say that in all but Open one must reload at their match, OK, fine. SOme people will stay away, others will not. THe numbers will tell.

[mpeltier]

I'm for limiting rifle rounds just to try to move some competitors out of tactical. I've been to matches where 90% of the entrants are tactical division. Whether this is a problem and if it's handled by doing something to make tactical less appealing or other divisions more appealing (the nerf/buff school of thought for those online gamers) is what we're here to discuss right?

I am sitting here banging my head on the desk trying to figure out the logic of this paragraph. You mean that because a division is obviously the most popular that for some reason you want to make it less popular????

Somebody pass the ice........my head hurts.

[pjb45]

I like Chuck's comment; rules modifications are for USPSA Production Pistols-----leave 3Gun alone.

Stop the insanity of regulating mag changes on rifles.

the unfortunate reality is reloading the shotgun is where many matches are won or lost.

[carlosa]

Limiting capacity makes no sence for rifle...

Most of us have this gadget called a "coupler"

It holds two magazines togather...

So for all you guys that want to add more reloads..

People will just pop one mag out

Move it half an inch to the side and stick the other one in..

Most of us do this already two switch between 55gr and match grade 69gr ammo..

So what's next making a coupler illegal to so folks have to load from the belt??

C'mon guys your seriously over thinking...

If you want to run a 30 mag in a 31 round stage go for it..

But don't be upset when some one beats you becuse they were there to play a game, and not to prep for the zombie apocalypse

Edited January 8, 2012 by carlosa