The death of 1-4's?

[HPD SRT]

ACOG!!! And Practice!

I need a lot more practice...

Practice is great but if you apply the same practice to the Swaro you will be better off. Hoser stages are no fun with an ACOG.

I have fallen in love with my DD Irons, you know the 45 degree ones? That is what I use for the hoser stages. I even put a fiber optic front sight on the front. There is that decision you have to make though, what distance am I comfortable with? I say 20 -25 yds is the edge of hosing with the irons, and that's on a full size ipsc, now they are using the little guys and it just makes it harder!

But I'm still a rookie so take nothing from me, just spouting random personal info.

Edited July 22, 2012 by HPD SRT

[Alaskapopo]

I know some people love Irons. I am not so sure we should limit our sport to make all stages iron sight friendly. Rifles and optics are advancing to the point harder shots can be taken why hold everyone back. Its like having revolver friendly stages in a pistol match.

Pat

[carbon9]

I know some people love Irons. I am not so sure we should limit our sport to make all stages iron sight friendly. Rifles and optics are advancing to the point harder shots can be taken why hold everyone back. Its like having revolver friendly stages in a pistol match.

Pat

ROFLMAO spoken like a true tac ops/open man. Give me a break!!! May as well start taking HM Scoped out to a 1000yds. Why limit the sport for the sake of the .223 or iron guys

edited so you can use your scope to read part of it

Edited July 23, 2012 by carbon9

[Bryan 45]

I know some people love Irons. I am not so sure we should limit our sport to make all stages iron sight friendly. Rifles and optics are advancing to the point harder shots can be taken why hold everyone back. Its like having revolver friendly stages in a pistol match.

Pat

Feel free to run your matches in Alaska any way you see fit. Thankfully we have match directors down here in the lower 48 that do not share very many of your opinions.

[9X23Guy]

Epic, I love it when Pat is making friends!

[outerlimits]

Epic, I love it when Pat is making friends!

Go ez on pat...he doesn't see but an hour or two of darkness daily...hence the elitist swaro mood.

[Alaskapopo]

I know some people love Irons. I am not so sure we should limit our sport to make all stages iron sight friendly. Rifles and optics are advancing to the point harder shots can be taken why hold everyone back. Its like having revolver friendly stages in a pistol match.

Pat

Feel free to run your matches in Alaska any way you see fit. Thankfully we have match directors down here in the lower 48 that do not share very many of your opinions.

No offense was meant just bringing a topic to the table. It seems to me like we could be doing more to eploit the accuracy potential with the rifles and optics we use. I am sure revolver shooters were mad when USPSA started drifting away from simpler course designs back in the low cap revolver/single stack auto days. Perhaps different targets (larger or closer) on the same stage for the limited division would be a solution so we can maximize the challenge for all divisions.

Pat

Edited July 24, 2012 by Alaskapopo

[co-exprs]

I see your point Pat. Evolution of the game. A couple of contradicting points though. While seasoned riflemen (and women) don't generally struggle with anything inside of 400yds, the vast majority of local level club shooters still do. Unfortunately for this arguement, there is nothing your 6x optic will do to make a new guy hit targets any better. No one (especially me) likes to stand there and watch someone bang away for 300sec and never hit the 475yd ABC plate. For the sake of growth, let the 4moa standard be. No matter the distance, winners will still win and losers will still lose.

On a side note... How is it that you live in the largest state with the most open space and don't run on a 500+ yd range? Sort of makes a 6x scope pointless doesn't it?

[orangeman711]

I love my Leoupold 2.5 by 8 but Kelly's right on.

[Alaskapopo]

I see your point Pat. Evolution of the game. A couple of contradicting points though. While seasoned riflemen (and women) don't generally struggle with anything inside of 400yds, the vast majority of local level club shooters still do. Unfortunately for this arguement, there is nothing your 6x optic will do to make a new guy hit targets any better. No one (especially me) likes to stand there and watch someone bang away for 300sec and never hit the 475yd ABC plate. For the sake of growth, let the 4moa standard be. No matter the distance, winners will still win and losers will still lose.

On a side note... How is it that you live in the largest state with the most open space and don't run on a 500+ yd range? Sort of makes a 6x scope pointless doesn't it?

I still use 6 x a lot as do most of my friends who have the scope. I have found for me its not just about distance its also about target size. I use 6x when dealing with auto poppers at 100 yards and beyond unless I can't see the whole array in my field of view and then I may dial it down abit. The Swarovski has a huge field of view. 6x definately is not pointless and I much prefer my Swaro to my 1-4 Accupoint. By the way we don't have a lot of open space up here. Its mostly forested areas.

Also it seems some match designers down there are breaking the 4moa rule. I just heard a poster talk about shooting MGM auto poppers at 300 yards. I would never do that to my shooters at a match. So I am not the most evil stage designer here.

One other point a friend of mine and I argue all the time is this. Do you build all the courses so everyone can finish them or do you add some challenge to it. I think it depends on the type of shooter you are and I mean no disprect. The friend I am talking about is fast and loves hoser stages. He gets irritated with me when I put 50 yard pistol shots into a stage or long range shotgun slug shots or long range rifle shots (in this case small targets at 100 to 180 yards limits of our range)

While I love the hoser stages too I think a balanced match needs some precision shooting to it maybe 20% or so. These are the type of shots that the new shooters struggle with. But if its not hard its not fun is my opinion.

Pat

Edited July 24, 2012 by Alaskapopo

[Alaskapopo]

I know some people love Irons. I am not so sure we should limit our sport to make all stages iron sight friendly. Rifles and optics are advancing to the point harder shots can be taken why hold everyone back. Its like having revolver friendly stages in a pistol match.

Pat

Feel free to run your matches in Alaska any way you see fit. Thankfully we have match directors down here in the lower 48 that do not share very many of your opinions.

Forgot to mention. If someone of your quality wanted to come to my match I would set up the stages however you wanted. We don't get the pro's up here.

[carbon9]

Wait, all this talk about irons holding back the evolution of the sport, and Svaro 1 this and Svaro 6 that, is coming from somebody who's own match range is 500yds or less?

Also, thank you for the charity of larger and closer targets for those of us holding back the sport. I am sure all of your clients/tac-limited/match attendees will still enjoy giving their hard earned $$$ to you now that they know how you feel about them

I didn't realize the course of evolution for this sport would be in the long range arena only or lead us to become one division out of necessity. This would happen if targets are used which can't be seen with the naked eye. Fortunately creative stage planners have used sheer genius and ingenuity to build stages of all types, balancing strengths and weaknesses, instead of taking the easy route and just putting targets out further and further. If that were the case I may as well just shoot High Power.

'popo, you could always have a "secret" sniper style/long distance side match every time for all you guys to show off your 1----6er tubes and see who can shoot the furthest. Just think, you could have skinny targets, larger targets.......

Hey, I think that swordfighting emoticon was finally very fitting

just having fun with you, tear it up and as usual be sure to get in the last word

[carbon9]

Just so all of you know, I am simply trying to interject common sense and humor into a ridiculous topic. I have nothing against Alaskapop and don't envy his job as a match director or popo. Props on finding and buying a toy(the svaro) you like so much. Enjoy it. Share your love for it but don't try to jam it down our(no jokes)..... I am sure I will be joining the dark side/evolution out of necessity in the next few years. I just bought my first pair of readers

[Sleepswithdogs]

why not use more bonus targets, then someone who's not a top shot or who may have trouble seeing a long range target may take one or 2 at them, but if there not getting close won't feel the need to sit there and empty the ammo can.

The addition of a couple of targets that are not in the irons course doesn't seem all that bad either.

Tar

Edited July 24, 2012 by Sleepswithdogs

[MarkCO]

If the long range, or very challenging targets were bonus targets...

IMNSHO, bonus targets are not really bonus targets. If there is value to hitting them, they are required. If the bonus is so small that they are not worth it for the top 5 or 10, they will skip them and then they become a penalty to the inexperienced who still try to hit them. Every target should be hittable, with benefit to at least the top half of the field or they are a waste and poor stage design.

I got some negative feedback from some shooters at the CO state match for 4.5 MOA targets! The position is what made them tough, not the range or target size. When you stretch out past 300 yards, the enviromental factors start to alter the conditions enough to make the course inconsistent and therefore alter the stage placings and thus the match. Luck of the draw should not affect placement.

Sorry for the drift...

[co-exprs]

Agreed. Bonus targets are kinda fun, because they mix up the thought process. Unfortunately the best way to shoot a bonus target will be quickly established in a match and only the unexperienced will not catch on. As it stands now, there are already more than a few guys out there good enough with irons to hit any 4moa target out to ballistic limits and beyond. I like the Z6i too, but I don't have one because I just don't feel that it will put any points on the board for me, and can't justify the price of admission. I certainly don't think it should be used to alter the game. I also like options and there are those who honestly feel that 6x gives them an advantage. Great! Snap one up and get to a match. I'll stick with what I've got.

[9X23Guy]

I agree with Markco about the bonus targets, they are not really bonus. I think every target should be worth something for everyone, even flying clays. Point is its equally challenging for everyone. And for the record Popo, I don't just like the hosed stages. I just think its frustrating to see a new shooter bang away for six minutes and from twelve shooting positions only to time out. I like the 4 moa standard and I think you should keep beginner shooters in mind when you stage design. They are the ones that will grow the sport. In the past three years I watched the number of legitimate 3 gunners almost double here in Alaska. Alaskapopo has had alot to do with that but I'm still in the camp of 4 moa and keeping the limited and new shooters in mind. That way fast guys are faster, no big deal. The other way around we turn new shooters away. Challenging is great and welcome, attainable is key in my opinion regardless of equipment.

[Stlhead]

Pat, I disagree with your assertion that limited and HM are holding the sport back. HM may be on the decline as of late, but limited has been on fire. There are more people switching to limited all the time. The competition keeps getting tougher and the gap between limited and scope tac and open has been getting smaller. I would be willing to bet if you attended more matches outside of your vicinity your opinions would be different. Is there a chance that your isolation up there in the frozen north, with much of your info coming from the internet has given you a skewed view of our sport? I understand the logistical difficulty of attending a larger sampling of matches in your situation, but I am certain that with a greater exposure to major matches your opinions would change greatly.

Hidden targets that are not visible to the naked eye have no place in our sport even in an optics only environment. There are already a number of matches that test that sort of shooting, and three gun is not one of them. Tactical long range matches are fun, if you enjoy that type of shooting, feel free to attend a few and see if you prefer them, but trying to mold three gun into a long range precision match is counterproductive. The vast majority of participants want to shoot at targets they can see, that the R.O.'s can see, and the rest of the squad can see. A stage with 4moa targets, out to 120 yards can challenge even the finest shooters in the world, the best shooters just finish it faster. We race with guns, running and gunning is the heart of our sport, shooting on the move, vigorous movement, dynamic stages that require creative solutions to shooting problems, these are the things that set our sport apart from the fixed positional shooting sports. Making 3 gun more like F class is just as foolish as making F class more like three gun, they are different sports, F class would not be any more fun with three gun gear than 3 gun would be with F class gear. If your idea of 3 gun rifle shooting is just going prone and engaging a bunch of small steel at range you are missing out on a large portion of the challenge of three gun.

Pat, I am pretty sure I have offered before, and I will offer again. If there is any way I can assist you in attending any of the matches that I go to, I would be pleased to offer any assistance that I could provide. I could help you with transportation, lodging, logistics, just about anything except getting you a slot.

[Alaskapopo]

Sorry did not mean to bag on HM or limited shooters. My point was the challenge is the same for everyone and we have different divisions for a reason. So as long as you limit the small targets to say 1 or 2 bonus targets for the whole match. I don't see the harm in breaking the 4moa rule once in a while again for a bonus target. For example like a Larue target at 500 yards. Thanks for your offer on help for the matches. I really only have the funds to do 1 maybe 2 outside matches a year. I plan on doing the Texas Multigun match again with even more Alaska friends next year. I wanted to go to Ozarks but money was just too tight after spending so much on the MGM steel for the match we (me 9x23guy,and two others) just hosted. I know the match we host is not nearly as good as many of the ones down there but we are doing the best we can with what we have.

Pat

Edited July 26, 2012 by Alaskapopo

[LSnSC]

Im new to 3 gun, less than a dozen matches under my belt. My opinion may not be worth much.

Im not at all interested in shooting optics. I get to do that in several other pursuits. The challenge of shooting targets from point blank to 4-500 yds with irons is one of the things that draws me to the sport. I want to test my abilities, not my eqipments or my wallets.

The sport is equipment driven as it is. If you make where a guy has to go out and buy a $2000 scope to be resonably competitive you are killing the sport. I want to participate in a shooting match, not an arms race.

[Sleepswithdogs]

Yet equipment in most sport is an "arms race." In skeet the K80 is an amazing gun and a bit of an advantage. In 3 position rifle at least when I started out Anschutz was the gun to have, and not cheap. It's the same in every sport with equipment and even those with animals. In French Ring if you don't have a Malinois your working up hill. In barrel racing the sky is the limit as to how much you can pay for a top horse.

The only sports that don't experience equipment "arms races" are sports like Tae Kwon Do, track or boxing. However the arms race still exists in the newer and newer training techniques.

To experiment to win is a human characteristic. Smokey Unick was a master at innovation in NASCAR, and as a result we have power steering and trick intake manifolds. Smokey had a saying, "If the rule book doesn't say I can't, I can!"

Evolution, change is human nature, and as as sure as the 1x6 is replacing the 1x4 something else will replace the 1x6. I don't think it is possible to stop an "equipment arms race," I don't think even employing a claiming rule like dirt track would stop it. The best one can do, IMO, is to slow it down a bit.

Tar

Edited July 26, 2012 by Sleepswithdogs

[gng4life]

Yet equipment in most sport is an "arms race." In skeet the K80 is an amazing gun and a bit of an advantage. In 3 position rifle at least when I started out Anschutz was the gun to have, and not cheap. It's the same in every sport with equipment and even those with animals. In French Ring if you don't have a Malinois your working up hill. In barrel racing the sky is the limit as to how much you can pay for a top horse.

The only sports that don't experience equipment "arms races" are sports like Tae Kwon Do, track or boxing. However the arms race still exists in the newer and newer training techniques.

To experiment to win is a human characteristic. Smokey Unick was a master at innovation in NASCAR, and as a result we have power steering and trick intake manifolds. Smokey had a saying, "If the rule book doesn't say I can't, I can!"

Evolution, change is human nature, and as as sure as the 1x6 is replacing the 1x4 something else will replace the 1x6. I don't think it is possible to stop an "equipment arms race," I don't think even employing a claiming rule like dirt track would stop it. The best one can do, IMO, is to slow it down a bit.

Tar

Wow, that was insightful! Totally agree that it will always be evolving, anyone who has been doing this long enough will see that. However, that's why we multiple divisions, to shoot with the equipment limitations (or lack thereof) of each division.

[DyNo!]

I know some people love Irons. I am not so sure we should limit our sport to make all stages iron sight friendly. Rifles and optics are advancing to the point harder shots can be taken why hold everyone back. Its like having revolver friendly stages in a pistol match.

Pat

ROFLMAO spoken like a true tac ops/open man. Give me a break!!! May as well start taking HM Scoped out to a 1000yds. Why limit the sport for the sake of the .223 or iron guys

edited so you can use your scope to read part of it

[MarkCO]

While I agree with Post 96 and 97, not sure we really want an arms race in all divisions (In fact I think we have too many divisions in USPSA pistol and 3Gun).

While it would be nice to have a unified set of division rules in 3Gun, we pretty much know that is just a pipe dream. I am a proponent of letting Open be Open, not "limited" Open and then the other divisions having some restraints. Magnification in TO is not something I think should be restrained though.

Course design affects equipment choices more than anything else. Go look at what the top pros run in say the 3GN Pro series and then compare that to what they run at RM3G or Blue Ridge...ain't going to be the same! The top tier has to change equipment to stay on top. For the most part, the 50% shooter will still be the 50% shooter no matter what he/she uses. The 50% shooter can move to 60% with a G34, M&P15 with a 1-4x and a 930 JM (total of about $3K with belt gear) with some dedicated practice and training, but a $2000 optic WON'T get them squat! I've seen "new" shooters step to the line with $6K of gear and still perform terribly. The top 5, put that $3K gear set in their hands...they might lose a spot or two, which is significant, but it won't matter to the 50% shooter.

Edited July 26, 2012 by MarkCO

[co-exprs]

Snap! Well said!