Tac Irons / Limited Division

[Alaskapopo]

By visible if you mean a contrasting back then I agree. If by visible you mean larger then not so much. I think 4 MOA is a good standard to keep long range targets at. I think that you should not think about division or equipment when you set up a stage. Set up a fun stage and then see how people stack up. We have different divisions for a reason. In my mind trying to make stages equipment netral is like trying to design a revolver friendly USPSA match. It ends up being great for the revolver guys and boring for the rest of us. If i want to compete heads up against the guys in another divison I will run that equipment and sign up for that division.

Pat

"Fun" for whom? "Fun" by what measure? It's not universal - and it can be equipment/division sensitive.

Well you can't please everyone all the time I guess. By dumbing down a stage and making it lower capacity so guys with shotguns don't have to load as much you are taking the challenge out and the fun. I shoot both open and tac optics and having to load more in tac optics with my shotgun does not bother me or make it less fun. It makes it more fun actually as loading the shotgun is part of the game. I hate it when match directors try to design stages to make it easier for any division. Sorry but in my opinion that is the wrong way to do things. We all chose the divisions we shoot if a stage is better for an open shooter due to round count I say tough get over it. I am not saying every stage should be a high round count field course but all the stages should not be 8 to 12 round shotgun stages either. Saps the fun right out of the match to have everything be easy.

Pat

I didn't suggest "dumbing down a stage", "making it lower capacity", nor did I mention shotguns.

I did recognize that "fun" can be defined differently by different people (and that equipment/division may be a factor).

There are people who are new (or even not-so new) to the shooting sports, and feel that any shooting is "fun". I've seen lots of "less experienced" participants have some "fun" on really crap stages. Others (often the more experienced participants) may be considerably more critical, and demanding of good stage/match design, execution, etc. When I was young and sex was new to me, any/all sex that I got was awesome. Now, nowhere near as young and having had a lot of sexual experience, I'm much more demanding/critical of my partners and recognize that there is a continuum (actually more complicated, with many factors, but for the purposes of this discussion "continuum" will suffice) - anything less than "excellent" sex is a fail.

I've shot/worked enough stages that hadn't been "dumbed down", yet were crap stages... and I've shot/worked enough steel challenge stages, etc., (straight-forward, not complicated), yet were fun/challenging and clearly tested certain skills when competing... that I'm not convinced that a more-complicated stage (meaning: a stage that hasn't been "dumbed down") is any measure of a "fun" or "good" stage.

Respectfully,

ac

I live in a state where the men out number the women so you can't be too picky lol. Anyway on stages everyone likes different things and I think that is good and thats why I like sharing the responsibility of stage design among different people. Sorry did not mean to offend you.

Pat

[ctay]

The thing that slowed me down from 3 gun wasn't the firearms - it was the shotgun caddies. Those are fairly unique to this sport and not cheap.

[Alaskapopo]

The thing that slowed me down from 3 gun wasn't the firearms - it was the shotgun caddies. Those are fairly unique to this sport and not cheap.

Some are pretty affordable. 3 gun stuff had some load 2 caddies that go on your belt and held 6 shells for about 20 bucks or so.

Pat

[ctay]

I'm set now - point is that when I started 3 gun I didn't want to buy 4 shell carriers for $40+ a pop. I loaded off a box strapped to my belt and was very very slow. Shot pistol and rifle very competitively, shot shotgun great, just couldn't load it quick enough.

I concluded that 3 gun was a shotgun loading contest. I didn't try it again until load 2 / 4 came about. Now it is less so and I really enjoy it.

[ac4wordplay]

By visible if you mean a contrasting back then I agree. If by visible you mean larger then not so much. I think 4 MOA is a good standard to keep long range targets at. I think that you should not think about division or equipment when you set up a stage. Set up a fun stage and then see how people stack up. We have different divisions for a reason. In my mind trying to make stages equipment netral is like trying to design a revolver friendly USPSA match. It ends up being great for the revolver guys and boring for the rest of us. If i want to compete heads up against the guys in another divison I will run that equipment and sign up for that division.

Pat

"Fun" for whom? "Fun" by what measure? It's not universal - and it can be equipment/division sensitive.

Well you can't please everyone all the time I guess. By dumbing down a stage and making it lower capacity so guys with shotguns don't have to load as much you are taking the challenge out and the fun. I shoot both open and tac optics and having to load more in tac optics with my shotgun does not bother me or make it less fun. It makes it more fun actually as loading the shotgun is part of the game. I hate it when match directors try to design stages to make it easier for any division. Sorry but in my opinion that is the wrong way to do things. We all chose the divisions we shoot if a stage is better for an open shooter due to round count I say tough get over it. I am not saying every stage should be a high round count field course but all the stages should not be 8 to 12 round shotgun stages either. Saps the fun right out of the match to have everything be easy.

Pat

I didn't suggest "dumbing down a stage", "making it lower capacity", nor did I mention shotguns.

I did recognize that "fun" can be defined differently by different people (and that equipment/division may be a factor).

There are people who are new (or even not-so new) to the shooting sports, and feel that any shooting is "fun". I've seen lots of "less experienced" participants have some "fun" on really crap stages. Others (often the more experienced participants) may be considerably more critical, and demanding of good stage/match design, execution, etc. When I was young and sex was new to me, any/all sex that I got was awesome. Now, nowhere near as young and having had a lot of sexual experience, I'm much more demanding/critical of my partners and recognize that there is a continuum (actually more complicated, with many factors, but for the purposes of this discussion "continuum" will suffice) - anything less than "excellent" sex is a fail.

I've shot/worked enough stages that hadn't been "dumbed down", yet were crap stages... and I've shot/worked enough steel challenge stages, etc., (straight-forward, not complicated), yet were fun/challenging and clearly tested certain skills when competing... that I'm not convinced that a more-complicated stage (meaning: a stage that hasn't been "dumbed down") is any measure of a "fun" or "good" stage.

Respectfully,

ac

I live in a state where the men out number the women so you can't be too picky lol. Anyway on stages everyone likes different things and I think that is good and thats why I like sharing the responsibility of stage design among different people. Sorry did not mean to offend you.

Pat

Pat,

No offense taken (and I apologize if my post read that way). I was just participating in the discussion.

Best,

ac

[cheryl]

I have always shot in the Tac Iron/Limited Division. I picked that division because I like the equipment that goes along with it. I only have one wish and I know this horse has been beaten to death -- long range targets need to be painted between squads. Isn't that what those nifty 4-wheelers are for? The main reason I keep hearing that the targets can't be painted is "it's just takes too much time". Sorry, not a good excuse. I'm probably going to keep finishing in the middle of the pack, but would rather do it based on my mistakes rather than based on just taking a shot to avoid a FTE penalty because the target is invisible.

[Alaskapopo]

I have always shot in the Tac Iron/Limited Division. I picked that division because I like the equipment that goes along with it. I only have one wish and I know this horse has been beaten to death -- long range targets need to be painted between squads. Isn't that what those nifty 4-wheelers are for? The main reason I keep hearing that the targets can't be painted is "it's just takes too much time". Sorry, not a good excuse. I'm probably going to keep finishing in the middle of the pack, but would rather do it based on my mistakes rather than based on just taking a shot to avoid a FTE penalty because the target is invisible.

One thing I have found that works is paint the targets black and put a white backer behind them. You won't have to paint nearly as much as if you paint them white without a backer.

Pat

[cheryl]

I have always shot in the Tac Iron/Limited Division. I picked that division because I like the equipment that goes along with it. I only have one wish and I know this horse has been beaten to death -- long range targets need to be painted between squads. Isn't that what those nifty 4-wheelers are for? The main reason I keep hearing that the targets can't be painted is "it's just takes too much time". Sorry, not a good excuse. I'm probably going to keep finishing in the middle of the pack, but would rather do it based on my mistakes rather than based on just taking a shot to avoid a FTE penalty because the target is invisible.

One thing I have found that works is paint the targets black and put a white backer behind them. You won't have to paint nearly as much as if you paint them white without a backer.

Pat

Totally agree, Pat.

[Langenator]

I have always shot in the Tac Iron/Limited Division. I picked that division because I like the equipment that goes along with it. I only have one wish and I know this horse has been beaten to death -- long range targets need to be painted between squads. Isn't that what those nifty 4-wheelers are for? The main reason I keep hearing that the targets can't be painted is "it's just takes too much time". Sorry, not a good excuse. I'm probably going to keep finishing in the middle of the pack, but would rather do it based on my mistakes rather than based on just taking a shot to avoid a FTE penalty because the target is invisible.

One thing I have found that works is paint the targets black and put a white backer behind them. You won't have to paint nearly as much as if you paint them white without a backer.

Pat

Totally agree, Pat.

Heck, that's the same presentation they use at Camp Perry at 600 yards. Good enough for me.

[1chota]

this discussion has been going on for a very long time. one would think the MDs would pick up on it. My favorite 3 gun match does not re-paint targets. The ROs and Md shoot on the first go-around. After that, so solly Charlie. It cannot be that big a deal, but it seems to be. I have friends that shoot irons and cry and cry, but nothing changes. I shoot a scope for that reason. Still, sometimes it is hard to find the targets with a scope! Sheesh! Enough already.

[Langenator]

One of the local matches I shoot at is like that - the first squad to shoot a stage is good to go, those following are iffy at best. I recall one stage last month where, due to stage design, each of the long targets would get hit 4x per shooter (assuming they didn't just take the FTN). I was on the second squad to shoot that stage, and one of the targets (an MGM flasher) was totally invisible without a scope, and even then dang hard to find.

The kicker? They were less than ~300m downrange. I would have been happy to run down with a can of paint, especially if I was shooting irons.

(Of course, I'm evil, and use international orange construction marker paint, which tends to blend with scope reticles at times. Great for irons, though.)

[Alaskapopo]

One thing our sport is lacking in compared to USPSA pistol is repeatable stage presentations from first shooter to last. Its usually fine on pistol and rifle stages but for long range rifle it becomes a problem. There is a big difference between shooting a long range stage in the morning with no wind and freshly painted targets than shooting the same stage in the afternoon with the sun at your face and a 15 mph wind and targets that have not been painted. We need to work on this.
Pat

[Lead-Head]

One thing our sport is lacking in compared to USPSA pistol is repeatable stage presentations from first shooter to last. Its usually fine on pistol and rifle stages but for long range rifle it becomes a problem. There is a big difference between shooting a long range stage in the morning with no wind and freshly painted targets than shooting the same stage in the afternoon with the sun at your face and a 15 mph wind and targets that have not been painted. We need to work on this.

Pat

That seems to be one very popular point of view. I respect it, but disagree. Lots of folks are trying to figure out how to make all the stages "fair". Standard barricades, limiting distance, frequently painting targets bright colors, bigger pistol steel, close SG plates, steel that does not have to fall if you can prove you hit it... Ehhh...3 gun ain't the rainbow coalition. I primarily shoot irons. Sun, wind, weather have hurt me on some stages when others got to shoot them under better conditions, and I benefit from this from time to time.

When new shooters to 3 gun used to quote a uspsa rule at matches we had a standard answer "this is not USPSA" and it does not need to be.

BRM3G paints their targets grey, makes it same across the entire match...good solution. Are they hard to see? Sometimes. I shot a texas start at 100yards with a rifle last year at BRM...it was getting so dark I could call the hits for the sparks flying off the plates. It was cool.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Lead-Head

[EaZeNuTZ33]

I agree with the idea and concept of shooting equity....as explained to me by Rob Romero at Fallen Brethren.

The problem is multifaceted tho. In heavy shotgun stages in the woods, if I'm one of the last groups to go, everyone has cleared shooting lanes thru grass and trees to the point where I could care less if the targets are painted.

The angle if the sun is completely uncontrollable unless we all demand that all rifle target shooting lanes must be in the middle of a field and with shooting direction North or South.

Pistol bays will cast shadows in various angles throughout the day and aside from making all stages symmetrical and no one shooting from 11:30am to 1:30pm when the sun is straight up in the sky.

I like the idea of painting steel between squads. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I also like the idea of doing those things that you CAN do in order to maximize shooter equity across all divisions.

[kurtm]

Oh you all sound lime a bunch of whiners ! No one told you to bring iron sights to these matches, it is impossible to paint targets, there isn't any time to paint between stages, if you cant see the targets maybe you should remember where they are by land mark......enjoy!!!

[Alaskapopo]

One thing our sport is lacking in compared to USPSA pistol is repeatable stage presentations from first shooter to last. Its usually fine on pistol and rifle stages but for long range rifle it becomes a problem. There is a big difference between shooting a long range stage in the morning with no wind and freshly painted targets than shooting the same stage in the afternoon with the sun at your face and a 15 mph wind and targets that have not been painted. We need to work on this.

Pat

That seems to be one very popular point of view. I respect it, but disagree. Lots of folks are trying to figure out how to make all the stages "fair". Standard barricades, limiting distance, frequently painting targets bright colors, bigger pistol steel, close SG plates, steel that does not have to fall if you can prove you hit it... Ehhh...3 gun ain't the rainbow coalition. I primarily shoot irons. Sun, wind, weather have hurt me on some stages when others got to shoot them under better conditions, and I benefit from this from time to time.

When new shooters to 3 gun used to quote a uspsa rule at matches we had a standard answer "this is not USPSA" and it does not need to be.

BRM3G paints their targets grey, makes it same across the entire match...good solution. Are they hard to see? Sometimes. I shot a texas start at 100yards with a rifle last year at BRM...it was getting so dark I could call the hits for the sparks flying off the plates. It was cool.

I agree that life is not fair just saying we should do things like paint targets to make it as fair as we can. We can't control the weather but we can paint.

Pat

[bigbrowndog]

can't be done,.......................................................in the USA!!

trapr

[EaZeNuTZ33]

can't be done,.......................................................in the USA!!

trapr

hey........those spray cans of paint at WalMart went from $0.96 to $0.98 per can at my WalMart! The economy and such

[charliedelta]

Wow. This topic went way off into left field pretty quick. Appreciate all of the points of view. I still feel like an entry level division would be less intimidating to newcomers and attract more people to the sport. Limited / Tac Irons feels like a good fit. The guys with the tricked out 9mm 2011's could throw a scope onto their AR and play in Tac Ops. I don't think they would balk much at scaling back the pistol requirements for the irons division. Just my opinion.

[El Guapo]

You're wrong about people not minding. There are a number of dedicated irons shooters with tricked out pistols that would be pissed if you start jacking with the division rules. It ain't broke don't try fixing it.

[1911-45]

Wow. This topic went way off into left field pretty quick. Appreciate all of the points of view. I still feel like an entry level division would be less intimidating to newcomers and attract more people to the sport. Limited / Tac Irons feels like a good fit. The guys with the tricked out 9mm 2011's could throw a scope onto their AR and play in Tac Ops. I don't think they would balk much at scaling back the pistol requirements for the irons division. Just my opinion.

I shoot tac/limited only for 3 years now with a G34. If you start to "limit" mag capacity in all 3 guns then the shooter will NOT have room on the belt to carry enough mags/shells to complete most of the stages! Your "production" 9mm pistols can hold the same as a 2011.Remember tricked out 9mm 2011's are only 1 of 3 guns. You must master ALL 3 to win....

[bmiller]

You're wrong about people not minding. There are a number of dedicated irons shooters with tricked out pistols that would be pissed if you start jacking with the division rules. It ain't broke don't try fixing it.

Amen!

[millsusaf]

Wow. This topic went way off into left field pretty quick. Appreciate all of the points of view. I still feel like an entry level division would be less intimidating to newcomers and attract more people to the sport. Limited / Tac Irons feels like a good fit. The guys with the tricked out 9mm 2011's could throw a scope onto their AR and play in Tac Ops. I don't think they would balk much at scaling back the pistol requirements for the irons division. Just my opinion.

I shoot tac/limited only for 3 years now with a G34. If you start to "limit" mag capacity in all 3 guns then the shooter will NOT have room on the belt to carry enough mags/shells to complete most of the stages! Your "production" 9mm pistols can hold the same as a 2011.Remember tricked out 9mm 2011's are only 1 of 3 guns. You must master ALL 3 to win....

This is why there doesn't need to be a change. A person shooting a $450 Glock is at no more of a disadvantage than a guy with a 2011. The gear only matters slightly difference, its the shooter running the gun that makes the biggest difference. I would wager you could give a pro a Hi-point and a noob a tricked out 2011 and the pro would still win handily.

It just isn't an issue.

[EaZeNuTZ33]

Wow. This topic went way off into left field pretty quick. Appreciate all of the points of view. I still feel like an entry level division would be less intimidating to newcomers and attract more people to the sport. Limited / Tac Irons feels like a good fit. The guys with the tricked out 9mm 2011's could throw a scope onto their AR and play in Tac Ops. I don't think they would balk much at scaling back the pistol requirements for the irons division. Just my opinion.

I shoot tac/limited only for 3 years now with a G34. If you start to "limit" mag capacity in all 3 guns then the shooter will NOT have room on the belt to carry enough mags/shells to complete most of the stages! Your "production" 9mm pistols can hold the same as a 2011.Remember tricked out 9mm 2011's are only 1 of 3 guns. You must master ALL 3 to win....

This is why there doesn't need to be a change. A person shooting a $450 Glock is at no more of a disadvantage than a guy with a 2011. The gear only matters slightly difference, its the shooter running the gun that makes the biggest difference. I would wager you could give a pro a Hi-point and a noob a tricked out 2011 and the pro would still win handily.

It just isn't an issue.

Gotta agree......I'd leave the division and not shoot it if I had to get special equipment other than my scope off/T1 on to shoot the division. Downloading mags may be what some would argue, but now you're relying on everyone to be honest about 10 vs. 11, or 15 vs 16 in a mag.

[dcloudy777]

Changing an existing division is probably a losing proposition.

Adding a "production" division at club level matches doesn't really hurt anything though, just a little tweaking of the scoring.

From my experience talking to new and prospective 3-gun shooters, it's the auto shotgun that's the biggest hurdle. Pumps are still just a zillion time more prevalent.

Red dots have a great place to play now, and with good results. I'd like to see pump shotguns get the same opportunity.