Does 3 gun need a governing body?

[bigbrowndog]

Brian, I have no doubt there are damn good "new generation" shooters out there with the right attitude. Tyler is a great example, as is the rest of the AMU, and lots of the fine folks you have up there in MN.

sadly the the vocal few seem to dominate and overwhelm the silent majority, much as in politics. At some point this needs to end!!

trapr

[MarkCO]

sadly the the vocal few seem to dominate and overwhelm the silent majority, much as in politics. At some point this needs to end!!

I think you should shoot every stage screaming at the top of your lungs in 2014. That will get some press maybe.

[Moltke]

Without unified rules or divisions how is a new shooter supposed advance? How are they supposed to buy the right gear, that is "competitive" for their division, or "optimize" their performance if every other match has different rules?

So you train and shoot locally all year with (insert a piece of gear or rule here) and now have the confidence to go on to major matches but your (insert same piece of gear or rule here) is invalid? WTF!

Some may find themselves no longer competitive for their regular division based on gear allowed / not allowed; or some may find themselves at the bottom of the scoring list because they're used to putting 2 on paper anywhere but now they're expected to put two hits in the A zone, or the down zero zone but have points down, or something completely different. Possibly they're using USPSA targets, IDPA targets, 3GN targets, why not tombstone targets, or bullseyes targets with scoring values?

There's alot going on as this sport grows, with the influx of new shooters in the past 5 years and what the next 5 years is probably going to bring, wrapping some standards around the sport is a good idea.

It seems like some of you guys who don't want a governing body because you've got the years of experience someone like me doesn't have - and you're okay with shooting under a half dozen rule sets with varying divisions based on where you go because "that's the way it's always been". I'm still new to all this competitive shooting thing and yeah "my generation" wants some standards and expectations laid out - divisions, targets, scoring, rules, and classifiers just to name a few.

Let's take just division gear for example:

3 Gun is already so gear intensive that I'm finding a reason to buy a bunch of stuff I never expected that I would buy. When drum magazines are legal here but not there (better have one if everyone else does!), or 48rd magazines are okay but Surefire 60rd mags aren't (better have both!), or the guy with an Aimpoint is now shooting in the TACOPS division because there's no optics allowed in IRONS here... it makes for a rude surprise because constantly changing gear sucks.

I think it would be better if people could have divisions that were standard everywhere, agreed upon, so they can take their gear that they know inside and out to be used anywhere at any match. That way shooting can be about SHOOTING instead of adapting to some new rule that you're not used to. Having differing divisions / rules / targets / scoring makes it all a complicated moving metric and therefore unnecessarily hard to learn, train for, and harder to optimize.

So whether 3GN or some other organization applies standards to this sport, that is going to help new shooters get into it and set the expectations of existing shooters optimize their game. The way I see 3 Gun is it's the cumination of action pistol / shotgun / rifle and could actually stand a chance to go mainstream because of its broader draw of shooters / sponsors.

Putting in standards about rules / divisions / targets / scoring / classifiers / etc, in no way stops a match director from doing something creative or innovative. There can still be scenario based shoots, night shoots, unconventional shooting positions, sled drags, dummy carries, whatever floats your boat if you're into bondage then a hood & handcuffs too! I don't think anyone's trying to stifle fun or creativity, but I do think the sport can be more accessible and standardized.

[Alaskapopo]

Without unified rules or divisions how is a new shooter supposed advance? How are they supposed to buy the right gear, that is "competitive" for their division, or "optimize" their performance if every other match has different rules?

So you train and shoot locally all year with (insert a piece of gear or rule here) and now have the confidence to go on to major matches but your (insert same piece of gear or rule here) is invalid? WTF!

Some may find themselves no longer competitive for their regular division based on gear allowed / not allowed; or some may find themselves at the bottom of the scoring list because they're used to putting 2 on paper anywhere but now they're expected to put two hits in the A zone, or the down zero zone but have points down, or something completely different. Possibly they're using USPSA targets, IDPA targets, 3GN targets, why not tombstone targets, or bullseyes targets with scoring values?

There's alot going on as this sport grows, with the influx of new shooters in the past 5 years and what the next 5 years is probably going to bring, wrapping some standards around the sport is a good idea.

It seems like some of you guys who don't want a governing body because you've got the years of experience someone like me doesn't have - and you're okay with shooting under a half dozen rule sets with varying divisions based on where you go because "that's the way it's always been". I'm still new to all this competitive shooting thing and yeah "my generation" wants some standards and expectations laid out - divisions, targets, scoring, rules, and classifiers just to name a few.

Let's take just division gear for example:

3 Gun is already so gear intensive that I'm finding a reason to buy a bunch of stuff I never expected that I would buy. When drum magazines are legal here but not there (better have one if everyone else does!), or 48rd magazines are okay but Surefire 60rd mags aren't (better have both!), or the guy with an Aimpoint is now shooting in the TACOPS division because there's no optics allowed in IRONS here... it makes for a rude surprise because constantly changing gear sucks.

I think it would be better if people could have divisions that were standard everywhere, agreed upon, so they can take their gear that they know inside and out to be used anywhere at any match. That way shooting can be about SHOOTING instead of adapting to some new rule that you're not used to. Having differing divisions / rules / targets / scoring makes it all a complicated moving metric and therefore unnecessarily hard to learn, train for, and harder to optimize.

So whether 3GN or some other organization applies standards to this sport, that is going to help new shooters get into it and set the expectations of existing shooters optimize their game. The way I see 3 Gun is it's the cumination of action pistol / shotgun / rifle and could actually stand a chance to go mainstream because of its broader draw of shooters / sponsors.

Putting in standards about rules / divisions / targets / scoring / classifiers / etc, in no way stops a match director from doing something creative or innovative. There can still be scenario based shoots, night shoots, unconventional shooting positions, sled drags, dummy carries, whatever floats your boat if you're into bondage then a hood & handcuffs too! I don't think anyone's trying to stifle fun or creativity, but I do think the sport can be more accessible and standardized.

With respect it can in regards to your last line I highlighted. Local areas may have different needs to keep people coming or attending in different divisions. I created the production division we use up here and its helped boost attendance. That would go away if we were part of some organization as we would have to follow standard rules designed for some other places. Plus targets. USPSA for example does not allow you to mix certain targets on a course of fire. I like being able to do what I want.

Pat

[Bryan 45]

Ken, I think you're making this far more difficult than necessary.

Step 1. Sign up for match of shooter's choice

Step 2. Read the rules for that match.

Step 3. Go shoot match in accordance with rules.

Whether it's gear, scoring, targets, or divisions, the game of 3 gun is about adapting. Sometimes this is in planning for a match, at other times it's on the clock, but I feel it's an important and enjoyable part of our game. If a shooter finds this need to adapt too cumbersome or difficult, they certainly have the option of only shooting the matches that use their preferred set of rules.

[MetropolisLake]

When I think about starting our local club last year...If I had to use USPSA rulebook, or 3GN rules, I do not think I would have bothered.

Instead used a hybridization of Blue Ridge and Pro-am. Does leave a lot to the MD interpretation, but I have yet had a shooter quote a rules 5.6-1 when trying to argue something (does not happen much at our matches). 4-5 pages of rules are useable. A book, or rules/targets that are made for TV I think would be a pain at our locals.

My favorite rule that you guys adopted and quote all the time is "don't shoot the RO"!

[Moltke]

Yeah maybe, I overcomplicate things often.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Moltke

[ctay]

A governing body is necessary for consistency, safety and promotion (as well as other things).

It is actually kind of funny to read some of the responses here. This has a very similar parallel to politics. Few would argue for outright anarchy and slightly more would argue for totalitarianism. The balance you prefer is of course personal. The analogy isn't perfect since no one is forcing you to live under a set of Multi-Gun rules but never the less I hope you understand what I mean.

Virtually everyone has agreed that some consistency in equipment would be a good thing. Virtually everyone seems to agree that consistency in safety rules is a good thing. There are disagreements in stage design rules. There are disagreements in target design rules.

It seems there is support for a governing body that covers:

• Equipment divisions
• Safety rules
• Sport Promotion
• Club finder

If so then what I would argue we need is a governing body that is hands off enough to let creativity reign but tight enough to give some consistency and ensure safety. For my money the closest to that would be USPSA - since USPSA has the organization to support the sport, the structure to align the rules (and change them through the BOD) and the resources to bring clubs together. It is not a perfect set of rules right now - as many will argue. It can be though since there is a mechanism to modify it.

On the other issue discussed in this thread - re too much growth:

Here is a hard fact for some of the "old guard". You will eventually die. Do you want the sport to die with you? We need to revitalize the sport with new blood to keep it alive. We need the next generation of MD's, RO's and "experienced" help. We won't get that by excluding, or by arguing against club growth. For every 100 people that try the sport how many stick with it? 75? 50? 25? How many of those will be dedicated enough to get involved in setup and running a match? Just from a numbers perspective you can see why club growth is imperative.

3 Gun Nation tv is exciting. It may not be the exact type of sport that you want to shoot but it is great from a promotional standpoint. Top Shot was another show that drew people into practical shooting. Many people have their first experience shooting in an indoor range at a paper target. That is not very exciting. If that is all you know of shooting you are not very likely to get the "bug" (IMO). However if you see guys running and gunning in a sport that you can realistically participate in - that is a different story. This is the reason I also love GoPro match videos. Non-practical shooting people see the videos and understand how much fun this is. I love steel matches. People can get involved at minimal cost, have fun and know when they hit the target. I love any promotion of the sport. We need a constant flow of new people to find the ones that will keep the sport going.

[Sterling White]

The sport is not going away unless there is a gun ban. Bryan's post above #130 hit the nail on the head.

[Alaskapopo]

The sport is not going away unless there is a gun ban. Bryan's post above #130 hit the nail on the head.

I don't think it would go away with a gun ban either it would just change the guns that people use.

Pat

[Jadeslade]

Outlaw is the essence of three gun. I like the 8+1 Tactical configuration -only Horner matches use that anymore-not sure why, so I have a +10 and +12 tube now, like everybody else, but I haven't shot a match in a couple of years where that is absolutely necessary. You kind of have to take different stuff to a match if you want to do that, and set up after you look at stages. I kind of like running through the woods shooting at stuff and I hate governing bodies of most kinds, and I like that there are so many different kinds of matches now and I like most of the three gun shooters I know. I like shooting at flipped clays and golf balls and stuff. I like shooting slugs out to eighty yards. I hate sniper stages where you must have 6 or 8x to see the targets. My pack is too heavy now. I hate matches that are like qualification for Rangers or something. I like pistol arrays that are very much like USPSA pistol matches, and I like different types of pistol targets with steel and some really long targets and stuff. Maybe an equipment standard would be good, but after a while everybody figures out what they need for each match and adjust guns, etc. Adjustment is good. Playing three gun is fun. Governing is definitely not an outlaw's strong suit. DVC

[mpeltier]

On the other issue discussed in this thread - re too much growth:

Here is a hard fact for some of the "old guard". You will eventually die. Do you want the sport to die with you? We need to revitalize the sport with new blood to keep it alive. We need the next generation of MD's, RO's and "experienced" help. We won't get that by excluding, or by arguing against club growth. For every 100 people that try the sport how many stick with it? 75? 50? 25? How many of those will be dedicated enough to get involved in setup and running a match? Just from a numbers perspective you can see why club growth is imperative.

I haven't been around this sport long enough to be considered the "Old Guard" but I've been around long enough to fully understand what their talking about. None have said they don't want any club growth, just not an over abundance of it. When I first started shooting 3-gun almost everyone that showed up did so with the intention of setting up and bieng a part of the match as well as competing. This "Volunteering" was a big part of learning the sport and made for an enjoyable day for all. It also built friendships and comraderie. Today we see about 2/3rds standing around with their hands in their pockets or show up just In time to sighn up. They wouldn't know what volunteer meant if the dictionary hit them in the forehead opened to the "V" page. When were gone, whose gonna set up the stages? I guess the entitlement crowd will have to pay someone...

[ctay]

There's is a training aspect to participating as well. If no one points out that you need to be involved in setup and tear down then you won't be. Kind of like when my wife leaves the dishes for me to wash. I don't wash them, I hardly notice them. Just not my thing usually so I'm conditioned to ignore it. My wife somehow finds a way to help me get the message that I need to do the dishes tonight...

To me complaining that there are too man people is the wrong thing. Helping come up a solution (extra day, grind a second range - who knows) is the right thing. There is always a solution.

[Neomet]

I must respectfully disagree. There is not always an answer. Any viable structure or option will have a finite limit for the number of shooters it will adequately support. It is very easy to sit in an armchair and say there is always an answer when the problem is some abstract concept and you are not actually facing the realities of limited range space, other disciplines competing for said space and 100 plus competitors, a large number of which anymore you can't get to even tape a target without the use of a shock collar. If there is always an answer what is it specifically? I am all ears as I have to admit to growing weary of 1 1/2 hour wait times to shoot a stage. We have bright, hardworking folks here who haven't come up with the cure yet. Second days only work when nobody else wants the bays and you have volunteers to work two day matches. Grind a new range presumes you either have more room at your current location and the host facility will allow it or that you have the financial means to purchase new land. Ugly truths often await you down those paths.

Oh, and thanks for the heads up that I will die. Hadn't thought of that. As illuminating as that was for me personally it only really matters as to this discussion if we believe the sport is declining or stagnant rather than growing. Not the case, at least currently.

[02Fatboy]

I must respectfully disagree. There is not always an answer. Any viable structure or option will have a finite limit for the number of shooters it will adequately support. It is very easy to sit in an armchair and say there is always an answer when the problem is some abstract concept and you are not actually facing the realities of limited range space, other disciplines competing for said space and 100 plus competitors, a large number of which anymore you can't get to even tape a target without the use of a shock collar. If there is always an answer what is it specifically? I am all ears as I have to admit to growing weary of 1 1/2 hour wait times to shoot a stage. We have bright, hardworking folks here who haven't come up with the cure yet. Second days only work when nobody else wants the bays and you have volunteers to work two day matches. Grind a new range presumes you either have more room at your current location and the host facility will allow it or that you have the financial means to purchase new land. Ugly truths often await you down those paths.

Oh, and thanks for the heads up that I will die. Hadn't thought of that. As illuminating as that was for me personally it only really matters as to this discussion if we believe the sport is declining or stagnant rather than growing. Not the case, at least currently.

We need to hand out shock collars. And give the remote to the RO I am DAM sick of resetting and taping targets

Edited March 20, 2014 by 02Fatboy

[MickB]

As much fun as shock collars would be, maybe hand out procedural penalties for those not pulling their weight on a Stage.

On deck and in the hole shooters get a bye, then hand out the hall monitor sash to the next few people on the list to tape and reset. Those that choose to sit around can take a penalty.

Mick

[Bryan 45]

As much fun as shock collars would be, maybe hand out procedural penalties for those not pulling their weight on a Stage.

On deck and in the hole shooters get a bye, then hand out the hall monitor sash to the next few people on the list to tape and reset. Those that choose to sit around can take a penalty.

Mick

This is an Andy Horner rule. Going from memory, the one and only warning is a part of the walk thru for the first two squads at each stage on only the first day. After that, procedural, then call the range master, then the RM sends them home early. The last couple years at Blue Ridge we've had very good cooperation from the competitors.

[MickB]

I did not know that. I like the Andy Horner rule. I will have to raise it to the SMM3G Match Committee.

Maybe that is a first step to a Governing Body...

Mick

Edited March 20, 2014 by MickB

[Glock3422]

A governing body is only a benefit if they get it right. None have yet.

[buzzworm]

This is an Andy Horner rule. Going from memory, the one and only warning is a part of the walk thru for the first two squads at each stage on only the first day. After that, procedural, then call the range master, then the RM sends them home early. The last couple years at Blue Ridge we've had very good cooperation from the competitors.

This is pretty much what we do in our local 3gun match. I tell the ROs that if they have someone that is capable of resetting (health issues excluded of course) and doesn't help, warn them once. Second time is a 25 second procedural. Yes, 25 seconds. If that doesn't work, come get me. If I get stopped running the match because of this, they don't shoot any more that day. DQ for un-sportsman like conduct.

As for a governing body, I feel the participants pretty much do that with their showing up to a match or not. Like it, shoot it, don't like the way it's run, don't go. I also don't like huge rule books that have three different rules as to how the shooter must be standing at the start. Know the rules to the match, and let the RO work from there.

If someone is going to take the time to put on a match, line up where, when, help with running it, and all the other work that goes into it, as long as it is done in a safe manner, he should be able to do it how he sees fit, No governing body needed. Want to know what to expect, read the rules.

[goat68]

I'm not for a governing body.

My story ended shortly after working the 2000 Area 1 match. There was enough of the people I looked up to and was aspiring to be like turn me off by being nothing but a bunch of whining lazy entitled shooters that obviously turned me off. When I looked at what to spend my money on, shooting increasingly looked less and less attractive.

Fast forward to 2009 when a friend said that we needed to shoot the MGM Ironman in something called trooper class. I had reservations thinking it was going to be like before. The match had very few rules and it was the funniest time shooting with RO's giving directions, the hard shots, the zip line, and the rest of the squad yelling support.

I see a governing body messing up all that up and causing more folks that get fed up with the good shooters to quit.

Edited March 23, 2014 by goat68

[gose]

Looks like Outlaw has a slightly new meaning. http://www.ammoland.com/2014/04/team-benelli-performs-at-superstition-mountain-mystery-3-gun

It’s also the “Season Opener” for the Outlaw (non-3 Gun Nation) events.

I guess USPSA is also outlaw now...

Edited April 8, 2014 by gose

[Bill Filiaga]

How do outlaw gunners gain range access without certified Range Officers?

For you large 3 gun match organizers. Which are the best certified Range Officers to utilize when planning match staff? NRA, SASS, IDPA, USPSA etc......

[kurtm]

It is best NOT to use any sort of "certified" range officer. The problem is that they tend to use "their" rule set when in doubt and this usually goes against the rules the MD uses or wrote up. The other problem is they tend not to read or follow stage descriptions or change them to match their paradigm. Give me experienced 3-gunners, not "certified" R.O.s.

[MarkCO]

There is no one best. There are a lot of rulesets, a lot of opinions and a lot personalities. In any match, if you want the rules enforced, the RM has to be very involved, walk the stages with the ROs, make sure they understand what and how they are doing it AND, if they have any question that is not clearly spelled out in the rules, ask.

It is tough. We ask for ROs who know what they are doing, are self sufficient, but then tell them NOT to make any calls without asking. Heck, some matches won't even allow their ROs to DQ people for obvious infractions. So too, there are ranges that will not allow any match that does not have a national, non-profit organization.

To me, the best RO is one that shoots, is certified, is impartial, sees their role as both to enforce safety and provide customer service, but still knows when to set a shooter, infraction aside for the RM, call the RM and get back to running shooters. Stage drift is another problem that affects 3Gun more than other sports. This can be from the course changing but also due to the RO giving "special" observations and other things he/she has "learned" from running the stage. That makes the stage less fair for the first squad than the last squad.