is camo clothing frowned upon at matches?

[MetropolisLake]

My personal opinion is that here in Redneckville USA, camo attire is simply on the same level as casual clothes to the city folk. So if somebody shows up with something from Bass Pro Shops, especially if it is cold outside, and somebody has a problem with that, they need to get into the countryside more. If you ever watch football, watch a Green Bay home game. Pay attention when the camera pans the crowd. Notice how well over half the people has bright orange coats on? It's not because the Packer's colors are orange. It's because they have one nice coat, which is for hunting, and don't feel like they ought to have to buy another one in another color just because somebody might be offended.

That doesn't give a free pass for dressing up like a wannabe special forces operator though. Personally I wouldn't care but you ought to have enough sense to know that all it takes is for some liberal TV crew to show up and they can easily edit the content to be misleading and make a match look like some kind of militia training. My only deal with this is that they do make some nice digital camo pants with knee pads in them. I know because I've got a pair. I've seen some guys wearing uncomfortable separate knee pads recently and wondered why everybody doesn't just chill out and get some military type pants like I've got with built in knee pads. You can't tell me that wouldn't be more comfortable. I have some nice separate knee pads and they just kinda suck. I'm not about to show up anywhere except my own land with digital camo anything though.

Edited September 30, 2013 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[The Antichrome]

The President of the USPSA wears a camo CR Speed belt...

[ben b.]

I like the guys who show up in a shemagh

[TerryM]

camo in general is becoming more prevalant everywhere as the military downsizes and it will continue

just make sure to outshoot them

[toothandnail]

As someone who was in a group, TOLD to LEAVE a match because of clothing(we have NEVER been back) I find quite amusing the lamentations about the decline of attendance/lack of NEW shooters.

A lot get it, SO MANY DON'T, until that changes

[ericjhuber]

As someone who was in a group, TOLD to LEAVE a match because of clothing(we have NEVER been back) I find quite amusing the lamentations about the decline of attendance/lack of NEW shooters.

A lot get it, SO MANY DON'T, until that changes

1. Good luck with the new business. The website looks very nice.

2. Can you say what you were wearing? I'm curious what would cause an MD to punt an entire group of paying competitors.

[Sarge]

Just in case it is getting lost in the shuffle, there is reasoning behind not preferring Camo being worn at matches. The intent is to make the sport not take on a paramilitary appearance. From what I understand it is flat out forbidden in IPSC. USPSA only mentions offensive clothing. Some MD's don't care what anybody wears and I have seen the odd camo pants or shirt at my matches. If somebody showed up in full military garb I would most likely let them shoot but I would pull them aside and ask them to not wear it next time. Again, I personally would not care and probably find it funny but I can't let the sport get a black eye for it.

AND, if some hunter type wants to wear a realtree outfit that's actually different than military type camo.

[MetropolisLake]

I've wondered if this sentiment goes beyond clothing and onto rifles. I've got an AR with a long Daniel Defense rail, foliage green furniture, and an ACOG sitting on top. That doesn't seem to be common. Competition rifles seem to rarely have rails, never have foliage green, and military type scopes don't exactly seem to be the most common nowadays. Is anybody going to frown on that? Is the seemingly shrinking popularity of military looking rifles due to performance, or appearance?

Edited September 30, 2013 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Aglifter]

Was your set-up legal for the match?

[Sarge]

I've wondered if this sentiment goes beyond clothing and onto rifles. I've got an AR with a long Daniel Defense rail, foliage green furniture, and an ACOG sitting on top. That doesn't seem to be common. Competition rifles seem to rarely have rails, never have foliage green, and military type scopes don't exactly seem to be the most common nowadays. Is anybody going to frown on that? Is the seemingly shrinking popularity of military looking rifles due to performance, or appearance?

I don't shoot 3 gun so I don't own a competition rifle. I have an AR in my gun room that is pretty much stock except for an Aimpoint PRO and that's only because I can't see the sights clear enough to hit anything with it. I personally would never spend the type of money that an ACOG costs. I am not a swat team member and I don't foresee getting dropped off in the desert anytime soon. I doubt anybody would frown upon yours or my rifle at a match but they might look at us kind of funny. 3gun rifles are pretty specialized from what I see.

[Flexmoney]

I'll wear sandals and black socks.

I'll wear a pair of camo shorts, if that is what is clean.

My rain jacket is camo.

What I won't do is show up looking ATAS* and be "that guy". You know that "that guy" will be the one that gets on TV when the local news crew shows up to do a piece on competition shooting.

But, since most everybody now wears a fancy shirt with a bunch of sponsor logos on it now...we look more like a bike race than anything. So...no problem.

*ATAS (all tactical and shit)

[ben b.]

*ATAS (all tactical and shit)

One of the best acronyms of all time! Thanks to Tom Bowers?

[motosapiens]

I think the rule book should be changed back to the previous years in regards to camo clothing. Like I have said in earlier post I don't like it.

F*** yeah, 'murica!!

Seriously, tho, you think we should ban stuff you don't like? Can we ban overweight people? I don't like them. How about ugly chicks? Glocks?

Here in america, I believe in freedom. That means freedom to wear dorky bicyclist-style shirts festooned with colorful logos, or freedom to wear camo, or freedom to just wear bluejeans.

[MetropolisLake]

I for one think you can wear camo without looking like these guys:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=180277

The irony is that there was only one piece of camo between the three of them. That one guy's vest, that's it.

[thermobollocks]

I've wondered if this sentiment goes beyond clothing and onto rifles. I've got an AR with a long Daniel Defense rail, foliage green furniture, and an ACOG sitting on top. That doesn't seem to be common. Competition rifles seem to rarely have rails, never have foliage green, and military type scopes don't exactly seem to be the most common nowadays. Is anybody going to frown on that? Is the seemingly shrinking popularity of military looking rifles due to performance, or appearance?

A bit of both. For range work, there is absolutely no need to bolt a bunch of stuff to the front of the rifle, and having all sorts of metal (i.e. weight) dedicated to the task decreases handling. That's why you'll see most competitors using un-railed tubes of some sort. Fixed power scopes are also not that great for performance reasons. Close-up, you really want 1x to hose stuff down. That's why 1-X power scopes tend to dominate the divisions that limit you to a single piece of glass.

As for the appearance, competitors paint their crap whatever they want. I see tons of basic Magpul furniture in every color they make, and all sorts of rattlecan/Cerakote jobs, some camo and some not. One guy around here did a snakeskin camo job that turned out really well, but I see more people paint their dedicated game guns in GO FAST RED or whatever matches the CR Speed they bought.

If you get something because it's what the military gets, regardless of how well it really works, it may start a conversation that does not work in your favor.

Edit: I say this as someone who bought a 92FS as a first centerfire gun because "it's what the Army uses, shouldn't it do pretty okay?"

Edited September 30, 2013 by thermobollocks

[markhawkeyeordnance]

Wear whatever you want. IMHO, clothes borrowed from the outdoors community are more comfortable than those borrowed from the military. The gear made for the sport tends to run faster than the tactical stuff. As long as you are comfortable and I don't have to worry about you or what you might do to me I say rock it. Usually, the tactical guys tend to end up looking like and running the same rig as everyone else because it works.

MAIN POINT - come out and play even if you are loading shot shells out of your camo-laden front pocket!!!

2-bits spent...

[MetropolisLake]

I've wondered if this sentiment goes beyond clothing and onto rifles. I've got an AR with a long Daniel Defense rail, foliage green furniture, and an ACOG sitting on top. That doesn't seem to be common. Competition rifles seem to rarely have rails, never have foliage green, and military type scopes don't exactly seem to be the most common nowadays. Is anybody going to frown on that? Is the seemingly shrinking popularity of military looking rifles due to performance, or appearance?

A bit of both. For range work, there is absolutely no need to bolt a bunch of stuff to the front of the rifle, and having all sorts of metal (i.e. weight) dedicated to the task decreases handling. That's why you'll see most competitors using un-railed tubes of some sort.

That's part of my curiosity though, as I'm not sure this is the case. My Daniel Defense lite isn't any heavier than JP's stripped guards. Rainier is listing the extremely popular 15.5" JP guard as 18.24 ounces. My 12" Daniel Defense Lite rail is 15.3 ounces. Comparing apples to apples, a 12" JP is 15 ounces but most people want the longer version which just adds weight. Then if you do want a mini-rail on the JP for attaching a light, you tack on even more weight then have to mess with installing it. I've owned a JP 18" billet upper and it was significantly heavier than my BCM and Daniel Defense build, and that's with having a medium contour BCM barrel vs. a light contour JP. If weight was a concern, in which it was for me, my BCM/DD would be the better choice. But most top competitors would choose the 18" JP or something like it. That's why I wondered if the visual appearance of a rail system was part of the concern.

As for my ACOG, eh, it's not mine, just borrowing it. The only other optic I have is a 3x9 Zeiss hunting scope but the eye box isn't exactly all that great for fast target acquisition. The field of view is awesome on the ACOG and the clarity at night is real nice. I'll get something nice next year. Have to give this one back soon.

Edited September 30, 2013 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[ben b.]

Quad rails (AKA cheese graters) are kind of goofy for 3 gun. They have all of these edges & corners for attaching stuff you don't need for 3 gun, and you either wear gloves or buy rail covers to cover up all the rails you aren't using. The longer tubes give longer grips, which the 3G guys think is better for doing 3G stuff. You get more length for less weight with a tube than a rail, especially if it is a carbon fiber tube.

If the quad rail was better for 3G, that is what would be widely in use. It is not.

[thermobollocks]

I've wondered if this sentiment goes beyond clothing and onto rifles. I've got an AR with a long Daniel Defense rail, foliage green furniture, and an ACOG sitting on top. That doesn't seem to be common. Competition rifles seem to rarely have rails, never have foliage green, and military type scopes don't exactly seem to be the most common nowadays. Is anybody going to frown on that? Is the seemingly shrinking popularity of military looking rifles due to performance, or appearance?

A bit of both. For range work, there is absolutely no need to bolt a bunch of stuff to the front of the rifle, and having all sorts of metal (i.e. weight) dedicated to the task decreases handling. That's why you'll see most competitors using un-railed tubes of some sort.

That's part of my curiosity though, as I'm not sure this is the case. My Daniel Defense lite isn't any heavier than JP's stripped guards. Rainier is listing the extremely popular 15.5" JP guard as 18.24 ounces. My 12" Daniel Defense Lite rail is 15.3 ounces. Comparing apples to apples, a 12" JP is 15 ounces but most people want the longer version which just adds weight. Then if you do want a mini-rail on the JP for attaching a light, you tack on even more weight then have to mess with installing it. I've owned a JP 18" billet upper and it was significantly heavier than my BCM and Daniel Defense build, and that's with having a medium contour BCM barrel vs. a light contour JP. If weight was a concern, in which it was for me, my BCM/DD would be the better choice. But most top competitors would choose the 18" JP or something like it. That's why I wondered if the visual appearance of a rail system was part of the concern.

If you look at the 12" DD float tube sans rails, it comes in at 12 ounces. The Troy 13" is 13-ish ounces, and if you look at the 15" Midwest Industries gen 2 tube, it's 11 ounces. If you look at carbon fiber, it's half that. The Noveske NSR comes in at 8 ounces without the barrel nut, 11 with. If you need a light at some point, most of the tubes can still accept some kind of mounting system. "Messing with it" really isn't a complaint on the AR platform.

So, while many of the tubular handguards are as heavy as rails, tubes _can_ be made far lighter than rails.

[MetropolisLake]

If you need a light at some point, most of the tubes can still accept some kind of mounting system. "Messing with it" really isn't a complaint on the AR platform.

I said you get to mess with it because I was under the impression that some of these tube systems require you to take the tube off to install rail sections because you have to get to screws on the back of the rail section. Then if you decide you don't like that position and you didn't get a rail section that's long enough to be somewhat flexible, you get to start all over. Maybe I'm wrong about that but if that is correct, it may not be a large complaint but it's still time consuming. If I want a light, I simply slap it on. Where ever I want.

[ben b.]

It sounds like you prefer quad rails.

There is no penalty, and that is OK.

[MetropolisLake]

If the quad rail was better for 3G, that is what would be widely in use. It is not.

I think it's pretty obvious that it's not common. I just kind of think the fear of looking "tacticool" is part of why it's not. I have ran a long rail for years and although I've not been in competitions, I hunt with it and have shot it on barricade type of rests. I've owned a JP as well so I can compare first hand and I just can't say that I feel like the rail is or would hold me back due to the weight or comfort. Quite honestly I preferred the feel of the rail. I have some ladders on them and it feels perfectly comfortable to me.

There's been some guys who bought a rail system just to go to a 3-gun competition and immediately switch after one meet. I just have a hard time believing this is entirely 100% performance related. It would be more logical to deduct that they decided that they stood out visually, in the same manner as somebody wearing BDU's to their first meet. I'm half afraid that will happen to me.

The other significant part not mentioned elsewhere here is the cost. A quality Seekins or JP costs half of what my Daniel Defense does. That's a $200 difference. For a 3-gun specific build, that's just wasted money and would be hard to justify, especially if doing so would give off a tacticool vibe.

Edited October 1, 2013 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[ben b.]

Since you have not shot in a 3 gun competition, it makes complete sense that you would understand that a psychological factor like fear of looking "tacticool" is why rails are not preferred in 3 gun competitions.

Come shoot a 3 gun match. Your rail will be fine, and no one will care.

[toothandnail]

If the quad rail was better for 3G, that is what would be widely in use. It is not.

I think it's pretty obvious that it's not common. I just kind of think the fear of looking "tacticool" is part of why it's not. I have ran a long rail for years and although I've not been in competitions, I hunt with it and have shot it on barricade type of rests. I've owned a JP as well so I can compare first hand and I just can't say that I feel like the rail is or would hold me back due to the weight or comfort. Quite honestly I preferred the feel of the rail. I have some ladders on them and it feels perfectly comfortable to me.

There's been some guys who bought a rail system just to go to a 3-gun competition and immediately switch after one meet. I just have a hard time believing this is entirely 100% performance related. It would be more logical to deduct that they decided that they stood out visually, in the same manner as somebody wearing BDU's to their first meet. I'm half afraid that will happen to me.

The other significant part not mentioned elsewhere here is the cost. A quality Seekins or JP costs half of what my Daniel Defense does. That's a $200 difference. For a 3-gun specific build, that's just wasted money and would be hard to justify, especially if doing so would give off a tacticool vibe.

Come shoot a match, I AM one of the "tacticool" guys, I don't give a crap what others "THINK" I SHOULD be using, I use what I LIKE and HAVE. SAME rifle I hunt with, SAME SG I shoot clays with, and until recently the SAME pistol I CCW.

When I started , I was placing at the 50% mark (WITH an AK47 & $40.00 RDS) I changed that,

I have gotten better, and still use basically what I started with, made some changes when I moved to Open , changed SG, added some more RDS (helps with older eyes).

Come shoot don't worry what the "COOL" kids are doing. Have FUN !

Edited October 1, 2013 by toothandnail

[AustinT]

Nobody cares. Come shoot. I think rails look cool. I don't use them because I have baby hands.