Does 3 gun need a governing body?

[El Guapo]

I thought I would resurrect this thread to see if attitudes have changed at all.Are shooters happy with 3GN? Do the shooters who favor outlaw matches want some standardization? Is it time for a new organization? Should things keep on going the way they are?

[kurtm]

For me NO to all, except for the last.

[Mad Doc]

Yes, Benelli Chick, JJ and Stealthy Blagga should be the directors and dictators of such governing body.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Mad Doc

[Bryan 45]

I thought I would resurrect this thread to see if attitudes have changed at all.Are shooters happy with 3GN? Do the shooters who favor outlaw matches want some standardization? Is it time for a new organization? Should things keep on going the way they are?

I still don't see the need to give anyone my money for "membership" so they can dictate to the guys that actually run matches how they have to do things.

I run matches like I'd want to shoot. I use the rules that I like and are familiar to most of our local competitors. It works pretty well that way.

[toothandnail]

I think a governing body and membership dues would be a good way to reduce the number of entries in a match.

It would reduce my entries for sure.

[MarkCO]

I thought I would resurrect this thread to see if attitudes have changed at all.Are shooters happy with 3GN? Do the shooters who favor outlaw matches want some standardization? Is it time for a new organization? Should things keep on going the way they are?

I still don't see the need to give anyone my money for "membership" so they can dictate to the guys that actually run matches how they have to do things.

I run matches like I'd want to shoot. I use the rules that I like and are familiar to most of our local competitors. It works pretty well that way.

While I fundamentally agree with Bryan, I think it is worse today than it was when this thread started. While I don't really give a rip which ruleset someone wants to use for scoring, divisions, etc., I do care about the safety aspect. I see so many people running matches that lack the experience and knowledge to do so. Stage designs that are stupid, unsafe, aimed to "trip" up shooters are wrong!. We also have folks cutting and pasting sections of rulebooks to make their "own" ruleset and deleting some aspects of the layered safety approach that has been so successful in practical shooting for more than 30 years. I have seen ADs, NDs, 180 breaks, rounds over the berm...ON VIDEO, often times without a DQ. What I "grew up" with in terms of zero tolerance for safety violations has been watered down so far by some, including 3GN, that I am truly worried someone is going to get killed. We also have WAY too many inexperienced shooters competing in matches that are WAY over their heads. I have had to tell three parents this year that their child could not continue in a match because it was just too much for them.

There are a lot of good MDs/RMs out there for sure. But, it takes quality stages, a quality ruleset, and great staff to make a great match. With all the "new" folks shooting and running matches with no understanding of the reasons for some of the elements that have gone into the safety and stage design rules, NO, things should not keep going the way they are, however a governing body is not the best answer either.

[Lead-Head]

At the end of this season I like idea of governing body even less and outlaw matchs even more.

I hear USPSA may be looking at doing more 3 gun under their new leadership. Not sure if that is good or bad yet. I joined an area 6 USPSA FB group and if you think 3 gunners argue....u ain't seen nothing.

Locally I have not had a single person ask me about classifiers in months...I like that.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Lead-Head

[Jim Norman]

I thought I would resurrect this thread to see if attitudes have changed at all.Are shooters happy with 3GN? Do the shooters who favor outlaw matches want some standardization? Is it time for a new organization? Should things keep on going the way they are?

I still don't see the need to give anyone my money for "membership" so they can dictate to the guys that actually run matches how they have to do things.

I run matches like I'd want to shoot. I use the rules that I like and are familiar to most of our local competitors. It works pretty well that way.

While I fundamentally agree with Bryan, I think it is worse today than it was when this thread started. While I don't really give a rip which ruleset someone wants to use for scoring, divisions, etc., I do care about the safety aspect. I see so many people running matches that lack the experience and knowledge to do so. Stage designs that are stupid, unsafe, aimed to "trip" up shooters are wrong!. We also have folks cutting and pasting sections of rulebooks to make their "own" ruleset and deleting some aspects of the layered safety approach that has been so successful in practical shooting for more than 30 years. I have seen ADs, NDs, 180 breaks, rounds over the berm...ON VIDEO, often times without a DQ. What I "grew up" with in terms of zero tolerance for safety violations has been watered down so far by some, including 3GN, that I am truly worried someone is going to get killed. We also have WAY too many inexperienced shooters competing in matches that are WAY over their heads. I have had to tell three parents this year that their child could not continue in a match because it was just too much for them.

There are a lot of good MDs/RMs out there for sure. But, it takes quality stages, a quality ruleset, and great staff to make a great match. With all the "new" folks shooting and running matches with no understanding of the reasons for some of the elements that have gone into the safety and stage design rules, NO, things should not keep going the way they are, however a governing body is not the best answer either.

Mark, QFT.

We shot a match earlier this year where there was a target at about 400-450 on a dirt pile, we were told if you miss and we don't see a dust puff on teh pile it is a match DQ! That is SO WRONG! That shot should NEVER have been anywhere near a local match let alone a Major! It is wrong to put a shooter in that position and it could easily, since missing was likely sending a round off the property towards inhabited areas, close the range, cost an injury and gazzilions of dollars!

I don't think that you should necessarily have to be a member of an organization to shoot a local match, but if we want a concise, fully vetted rule set, we are going to have to have an organization and that organization will require funds. Those funds can only come from memberships and to some lesser extent, match fees.

[kurtm]

I'll throw in my version of QFT for my amigo Mark as well ( Quite f#$king true)!

[Dan Sierpina]

I'll throw in my version of QFT for my amigo Mark as well ( Quite f#$king true)!

Now, that QFT I can understand!

[bmiller]

I thought I would resurrect this thread to see if attitudes have changed at all.Are shooters happy with 3GN? Do the shooters who favor outlaw matches want some standardization? Is it time for a new organization? Should things keep on going the way they are?

I still don't see the need to give anyone my money for "membership" so they can dictate to the guys that actually run matches how they have to do things.

I run matches like I'd want to shoot. I use the rules that I like and are familiar to most of our local competitors. It works pretty well that way.

While I fundamentally agree with Bryan, I think it is worse today than it was when this thread started. While I don't really give a rip which ruleset someone wants to use for scoring, divisions, etc., I do care about the safety aspect. I see so many people running matches that lack the experience and knowledge to do so. Stage designs that are stupid, unsafe, aimed to "trip" up shooters are wrong!. We also have folks cutting and pasting sections of rulebooks to make their "own" ruleset and deleting some aspects of the layered safety approach that has been so successful in practical shooting for more than 30 years. I have seen ADs, NDs, 180 breaks, rounds over the berm...ON VIDEO, often times without a DQ. What I "grew up" with in terms of zero tolerance for safety violations has been watered down so far by some, including 3GN, that I am truly worried someone is going to get killed. We also have WAY too many inexperienced shooters competing in matches that are WAY over their heads. I have had to tell three parents this year that their child could not continue in a match because it was just too much for them.

There are a lot of good MDs/RMs out there for sure. But, it takes quality stages, a quality ruleset, and great staff to make a great match. With all the "new" folks shooting and running matches with no understanding of the reasons for some of the elements that have gone into the safety and stage design rules, NO, things should not keep going the way they are, however a governing body is not the best answer either.

Mark, QFT.

We shot a match earlier this year where there was a target at about 400-450 on a dirt pile, we were told if you miss and we don't see a dust puff on teh pile it is a match DQ! That is SO WRONG! That shot should NEVER have been anywhere near a local match let alone a Major! It is wrong to put a shooter in that position and it could easily, since missing was likely sending a round off the property towards inhabited areas, close the range, cost an injury and gazzilions of dollars!

I don't think that you should necessarily have to be a member of an organization to shoot a local match, but if we want a concise, fully vetted rule set, we are going to have to have an organization and that organization will require funds. Those funds can only come from memberships and to some lesser extent, match fees.[/quote

...

Edited November 5, 2015 by bmiller

[Stlhead]

Organizations do not make matches safer, or more enjoyable to participate in. There is a USPSA club in my town that runs a match so poorly I won't go to any event it holds, and would certainly not allow my children to shoot there. Too many times have I had guns pointed at me or seen guns pointed at others. Does this make USPSA unsafe? Does this mean that all USPSA matches are unsafe, no, nor does it make any non USPSA matches any safer. Match directors, participants, and RO's make matches safe, and also are the ones that can make them fun. Good people put on good matches, bad people put on bad matches. Lets all strive not to be bad people. We don't need to pay dues to any head office in order to have a good match.

[Jeff F]

Bryan nailed it! That is how I feel and run my matches. I had someone ask me if I was going to join 3GN and run it like that. My answer was basically 'Why so I can pay someone"?

I use all my match money to run the match, targets, pasters, steel and other props are expensive. We all volunteer our time to set up and tear down.

[Ranger6]

If the MD's of most of the major Multi-Gun matches could agree on a single set of rules, that would be nice. (aka IMGA)

"Rules, we ain't got no rules, we don't need no stinking rules here"

Ranger6

[3gunwoody]

3GN will Die a slow painful Death! First of all those that control the board aren't shooters. They are Film/TV/Production managers what ever you want to call them. Yes they have a pool of folks with input that are shooters but, their approach is totally backwards.Many Americans own guns. Unfortunately less than 1% of those Americans compete in the competition arena. To the new interested shooter that watched their carnival type shooting they televisioned this year shows up at a local match and sees/shoots a match that is not even close to what they saw. So I have asked a few newbies and they say they see the cream of the crop blazing away with their $10,000 .00 plus cost of kit and they are intimidated right from the start. They should be showing average people shooting affordable level equipment somewhere through out this country at a monthly match atleast a few times during their carnival show. Next is the SxxT they pulled last year to open registration on 6 regionals and to make folks pay then change the rules a month later! By the way the matches want full. What they done was make you pay for gas then give you water. Last their "Nationals" was supposed to be a invite/semi/club finish type event but, there again they change it to allow anyone to sign up and compete. So what do I know I've been in business for 31 years not 3. Now for all of you that sleep with 3GN pillow cases throw stones at me but I'm laughing with the poll pushers on outlaw matches and those that just want a good match without the drama they have caused. 2016 will be interesting.

[Jim Norman]

I can't agree OR disagree entirely with 3GunWoody.

My take is we DO need to show what 3Gun is like for the majority of shooters. It is FNH, SM3G, NCRecon, TarHeel and some others, It is also your local 4-5 stage club match AND it is a few 'Carnival' made for TV sideshows.

What we do need, at least in my opinion, is a coherent and cohesive rule set along with ROs, CROs, MDs and RMs that know what should be done and how to do it. We need to KNOW that doing X is a DQable offense for EVERY SHOOTER. we need to know that a penalty on a rifle target at 100 yards is x and at 300 yards is 3x. We need to know that our particular toy set that we used at the super zoomy 3Gun in Tac-Optic is legal at the Me Tarzan 3Gun.

Safety rules of course need to be carved in stone and enforced otherwise we won't need a rule set, we'll be shut out and shut down.

Now, with in the above there is ample room for just about any length of stage, number of rounds or shooter or physical challenge. You can have trooper class where the competitors must carry it all, all the time and sleep on the range and you can have Open class where you can bring along your masseuse and everything in between.

A 'Governing Body' can be a very good thing. You present yourself to the club management or a property owner with Hey, we'd like to run this 3gun run and gun super fast super zoomy match. We sort a kinda got a rule set and we know what we are doing. VS We are affiliated with the US3GSA (United States 3-Gun Shooters Association. They sanction our matches, we have a fully vetted set of safety and competition rules that are recognized across the country. Heck the Governing Body MIGHT even be able to obtain match organizers event insurance! Which do we think might be better received?

[MarkCO]

You make a lot of sense Jim. The rub is implementation and and then finding the right people to be "in charge" of such an Association. I believe it would need to be very low cost, like $50/year for a club/match and non-profit, only matches/clubs need join. The shooters will almost have to demand it of matches because most MDs see no reason for it. If such a ruleset did not mandate scoring method, targets and divisions but had some recommendations, I could see it working. Who is going to lead that demand? Are the shooters willing to organize themselves and demand that the matches create, or fall under a governing body and back it up with a boycott?

One organization I will not join for some of the reasons that are in the posts above. While I am a Life member of USPSA and fought for the rules to be improved, the most recent directions have not made sense and have taken a step back. Then I have to argue for my stage designs with someone who does not shoot 3Gun, does not know my range and a ruleset that won't let me use some targets for some asinine logic I still do not understand. Then if I run it as a Level 3 match, my competitors have to be USPSA members (they get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from that membership) pay close to $1K in fees to USPSA and then, the pistol shooters get slots to Nationals off the backs of 3G competitors. Nah, that won't work and that is exactly why I ran Noveske as a Level 1 match in 2015. IF USPSA wants to get into 3Gun and other non-pistol matches, they will need to change their model and not try to conform 3Guners to pistol shooter methods and rules.

The only way we got 3Gun at my club is because we used USPSA rules. The matches in our area that came along after did not use USPSA rules, but we had established the track record and all of the people that are running those matches started shooting 3Gun at the matches I ran. Blane, Eric, and then JJ and Denise ran the first matches here, and the club at some point started looking for ways to boot 3Gun. Not JJ and Denise's fault at all, but they still have 2 USPSA pistol matches a month. After a lot of years of starting and running matches locally, I have left those matches in the hands of capable people and I am moving on to other things. But, it is hard to get 3Gun by some old BODs without that national organization. For a while, it looked like the NRA was going to fill that niche, but they have fallen by the wayside for some reason.

[EaZeNuTZ33]

After a couple years of shooting and being at majors all over the country, shooting outlaw, 3GN, and USPSA MG rulesets.......well, they're all screwed up in one form or another, and there are aspects of each one that I find to be asinine, useless, a trap,....

3GN may not have always been the best with PR, and there are a number of former 3GN shooters/Pro Series shooters who won't shoot it anymore. I get the sentiment and understand some of the reasonings. I think there have been some more positive aspects from their ruleset that I did like, hot-reholstering for one, and others that I haven't liked. It's one interpretation of how things should be.

USPSA multigun rules have lead to several local shooters around here to refuse to shoot certain matches because they would have to be a member for a small (minimal to no prize table) match, and USPSA has a couple really stupid and redundant rules that make people's heads spin. When you have shooters who only use long guns to hunt writing the rules, well, that's what you get!

Outlaw rules have been anywhere from "near USPSA" or "near 3GN", to "yeeeeeehhhaaaaaaawwwwwwwwww, We Wild West it 'round here!" And MarkCO is right....some are just flat out poorly copied and pasted sections of rulesets that exist somewhere else. I've even HEARD people say "we just copied XXXXX's ruleset." Publishing it on their website is plagiarism correct?

When I shoot club matches where there is only 3-gun, I hear things about "bigboy rules" when it comes to a rule that might be used that other matches don't allow.....but I rarely hear a single thing about a need to associate with any particular organization. Perhaps it's because there has yet to be any major incidents there to date, I don't know.

When I shoot club matches at locations where there are USPSA matches held, I've heard one major thing stand out. The established USPSA shooters recommend over and over that the multigun group associate with ANYONE....just as long as they can show a defined ruleset and organization association. Their claim is that being associated with a well defined ruleset could protect that club in the instance that something bad occurred on the range, and possibly limit liabilities. I've yet to hear a single one say it HAD to be USPSA or HAD to be 3GN rules....just that it could offer some protection. I can understand the reasoning......"shooter X did not follow the rules clearly stated in x.xx.xxx.xx.x and signed the entry waiver that he had read and understood the rules, therefore we cannot be held solely responsible for his self induced gun shot"

The argument about the "perfect ruleset" will be eternal with this niche group of shooters......why? Because we can't agree upon whether or not to use stage points vs. total time, hot reholster vs. dump buckets only, can a long gun be cleared muzzle down into a barrel while the shooter progresses downrange (something I've seen at EVERY ruleset), DQ vs penalty for dumping a 2011 with 2lb trigger and thumb safety disengaged (vs. an M&P or Glock with similar weight trigger being dumped the same way)......... everyone will continue to have different answers.

I don't think 3GN is going away any time soon, and neither are Outlaw matches or even some USPSA multigun matches........I could see this being an IDPA vs. IPSC vs. USPSA debate down the road.

[Headworked]

IMG rules have been the best by far in last 15 years. At least they were smart enough not to dump a gun into a barrel that already has a gun waiting to be used in it