Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Optional Pistol Shotgun Targets


Recommended Posts

There seems to be a trend toward those who don't have to or don't want to load a shotgun preferring optional targets. Curious. I in particular spent a lot of time on that skill and I'd like to get some benefit out of it.

Maybe, but for me I love the shotgun too, (especially now that I have one that runs). I don't mind optional targets, as long as there is a balance. I DO want to shoot all 3 guns, hell, I'm even up for a sling shot stage. I chose to shoot pistol at some optional targets at the pro am because I know it's faster, IF it's working for me. Sometimes I chose both depending on where the transition fell. But I'm with Austin, reloads need to be part of the game, with all 3 platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well Moltke you make some very broad statements of witch I doubt you have a base to make them from. I may be wrong, but might I ask how many S.O.F matches did you attend? My impression was that my gear and I were tested to a much higher degree at S.O.F. matches than anything since. Outside of Kyle Lamb's matches most the rest are what I would call 3-gun light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Moltke you make some very broad statements of witch I doubt you have a base to make them from. I may be wrong, but might I ask how many S.O.F matches did you attend? My impression was that my gear and I were tested to a much higher degree at S.O.F. matches than anything since. Outside of Kyle Lamb's matches most the rest are what I would call 3-gun light.

No reason to get upset because I made a comparison to SOF. What did I say that isn't accurate? The sport is bigger, faster, and gamier than its ever been. And its come a long way from being a martial exercise in measuring combat skills. The sport has changed since its inception, the shooting has changed, and there has been a gear race which is reflected in every division. As a result of the gear race people are shooting faster and more accurate, and now courses of fire are designed with that in mind. You're an IRONS shooter so you should know what I mean with regard to shooting long range. Smaller targets, farther away, because almost everyone has optics nowadays.

So what that its far from its martial beginnings? That's not a good or bad thing, just a fact. To be "competitive" you have to use a gamed out lightweight accurized version of an assault rifles shooting match ammo and similar mods to extra high capacity finely tuned pistols, and even so with shotguns in some respects. Many guns have "competition only" modifications that wouldn't exist on any regular service grade firearm. The technology has advanced and so has the requirements of the game. Most places you come with an off the shelf M4 with an off the shelf Glock and off the shelf 870, then you may be there to shoot ... but you're probably not there to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful Ken...I think the 3Gunners are generally less accurate now than in the past. Also, you give a few of the old hands an M4, G17 and an 870 they are still going to kick the tail of at least 90% of the 3gunners to the curb. Way too many 3Gunners, especially new 3Gunners, chase equipment instead of the fundamentals. There are a few "pros" on the 3GN Pro Tour who have a very difficult time in the wider expanses with more difficult targets, and some who excel in those types of matches where they re not very highly placed on the Pro Tour.

Some of the matches with "optional" targets are certainly playing to the strengths of those who can't, or won't run a shotgun well, but some are not.

Last, read your own signature line, right under your name...just sayin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A gear race? No not so much, a gadget race for sure but not a gear race. I.e. I am an iron sight shooter...no dot, real iron sights. I am still winning or placing in the top with the exact same gear I was using in 2001....except for one important piece of gear....my Wilderness Instructors Belt which somehow grew 5". :) The targets aren't smaller, the good old standby flash target was made in 1997. 4"X4" pistol steel were common. You don't need a light weight gamer gun to win, you don't need a super tricked out pistol, nor shotgun....all my gear still meets the gear restrictions of the old S.O.F match....what you do need is a modicum of skill and ammo to practice.

I am not bent In the least but where you posted today gear and shooters are pushed to their limits due to the fast pace of 3-gun I heartily disagree. I haven't been to a match lately that had a pressure washer set up so you could blast off the mud from your gear and rifle which looked more like a fence post. Nor have I been to one that had you low crawl under barbed wire through bottomless sand and dust while trying to engage targets out to 300 yards lately. Yes it is faster in the fact they made the targets bigger and moved them closer. Yes it is a different sport, but don't try to make it sound harder, because it isn't.

Now I can tell you that I am not an anomaly. Guys like my brother, who hasn't finished out of the top 10 in T.O. in years still shoot the same old gear. Heck he still uses a first gen Glock 17. Guys like Pat Kelley who show up not with the newest, but most used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful Ken...I think the 3Gunners are generally less accurate now than in the past. Also, you give a few of the old hands an M4, G17 and an 870 they are still going to kick the tail of at least 90% of the 3gunners to the curb. Way too many 3Gunners, especially new 3Gunners, chase equipment instead of the fundamentals. There are a few "pros" on the 3GN Pro Tour who have a very difficult time in the wider expanses with more difficult targets, and some who excel in those types of matches where they re not very highly placed on the Pro Tour.

Some of the matches with "optional" targets are certainly playing to the strengths of those who can't, or won't run a shotgun well, but some are not.

Last, read your own signature line, right under your name...just sayin'

Probably so with regard to accurate shooting. I have heard how its gone that way in USPSA too, more speed, less accuracy. Hardly see anything past 25 yards because everyone wants to "go fast". When my local club had a 50 yard standards classifier most people were pretty upset. I looked forward to it then ending up doing worse than I thought I would. And yeah, I'm aware of my sig line. Its to keep me reminded not to get wound up about gear and focus on myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt say it was harder and certainly not with regard to low crawling under barbed wire through mud or sand. Been there and done that other times & it sucks. From what I understand SOF was about simulating combat & shooting skill, but it was more than just shooting. Kind of how I think of Ironman as "a life experience that happens to be multi-gun". It's more than 3 Gun.

However modern 3 Gun is about shooting, specifically speed shooting. It's testing who can bring the minimum required accuracy to bear with all three guns against the targets downrange the fastest. Its "controlled hosing" except for the occasional hard shot which requires pause.

It sucks that I opened with anything about SOF in the first place because my post was about Optional Targets reducing a barrier to entry to the sport & making it easier / more fun for new shooters to participate. I see this as a good thing when used smartly. Of course if new people ever want to be top shooters they have to MASTER the game not just their own discipline.

Also I think that putting MORE of all targets downrange, and generally having a higher round count for matches - especially majors - would be a very good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad that I finally know what modern 3-gun is about, I wonder if I would be any good at it. You mean to say you use all 3 guns? Minimum accuracy the fastest? Well us old guys probably can't even compete with that so I'll just have to keep bringing maximum accuracy the fastest with me and see what happens. So far so good :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that statement 100%. I also think this is why "option" targets got started, because too many folks rely on the minimum accuracy thing instead of getting better.....but that is just me.

Edited by kurtm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first option targets I ever saw.....well......I thought they were optional. I'm still mad about the 10 failures to engage.....I know I engaged them......with harsh language :)

Okay, that's pretty funny.

"But you said they were optional."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This month marks the 34 year anniversary of the first SOF 3 gun competition and the sport has come a long way from the combat fantasy that it once was.

It's bigger and faster and gamier than its ever been; pushing guns, gear and people to their limit & gaining recognition for being the culmination of the action shooting sports. Option targets are a way to allow people who aren't amazing with every gun play to their strengths and have the best performance they possibly can overall. Just like "stage points factored scoring", its a way for people who suck at something (long range rifle) to minimize the impact. For others its a way to maximize their skill with their original discipline to "gain ground" on other competitors.

Properly managed any aspect of 3 Gun can be a great thing, or improperly managed it can be craptastic, but I think we can all agree on the following: More 3 gunners is better for everyone.

If "option targets" gets a dedicated pistolero / shotgunner / rifleman to come shoot 3 gun because they can maximize their performance with their "favorite" gun, then how is that not a good thing? The more, the merrier. Match directors should still have courses of fire that are 2 gun, 3 gun, and mandatory targets, or whatever they please. Personally I'd like to see MORE of everything. More 3 gunners. More targets downrange. More choice on what to shoot. More choice on HOW to shoot. More focus on shooting than running. More focus on shooting a shotgun than loading (a shotgun). More matches. More "hard shots". More everything.

With enough targets downrange, everyone can be satisfied.

The problem with this analysis is that a true option target event will quickly devolve into a rifle match with a bit of pistol and an even smaller bit of shotgun. It's just too difficult to design a large number of stages in which pistols dont outgun the shotgun and rifles don't outgun the pistol. At least pistols can keep up with rifles in the under 25 yd arena but shotgun shooters can load as fast as they want but they'll never catch good pistol shooters unless the targets require an ounce of lead to knock them over which isn't a true option target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amateur stage at the Rock with all steel optionals pushed me into all pistol, not shotgun, with the no-shoot plates so close to the shoot plates. Being that I prefer pistol was a happy coincidence.

:Maybe we should have more true 3 gun matches and less multi gun. When I started, not that many years ago, 3 gun had several stages with one gun only, and multi gun had the guns mixed on the stages. That would truly test skills with each gun, no dodging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amateur stage at the Rock with all steel optionals pushed me into all pistol, not shotgun, with the no-shoot plates so close to the shoot plates. Being that I prefer pistol was a happy coincidence.

:Maybe we should have more true 3 gun matches and less multi gun. When I started, not that many years ago, 3 gun had several stages with one gun only, and multi gun had the guns mixed on the stages. That would truly test skills with each gun, no dodging.

I like this idea and it has the added benefit of being able to run shooters more quickly through the stages. You might even stand a chance of coming home before dark that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is 3Gun, and transitions, as well as shooting several ways in one course of fire is, IMHO, part of the challenge. I do however include a pistol, shotgun and rifle only stage in my matches. But the focus should always be balance of the stages and the skills tested. Too many matches are just one flavor on all of the stages and don't test a wide enough array of skills. MDs who shoot at at least a decent level and have been around for a while and understand the elements needed to be a well rounded shooter. They tend to have the matches that, to me, test the whole spectrum of shooters the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So perhaps the ultimate match would be nine stages. One all pistol, one all shotgun and one all rifle. Then three option stages were the competitor can choose what gun to engage what targets, and three stages with no options, shoot the targets with the guns required in the stage description. The question is, would a match with something for everyone make everyone happy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So perhaps the ultimate match would be nine stages. One all pistol, one all shotgun and one all rifle. Then three option stages were the competitor can choose what gun to engage what targets, and three stages with no options, shoot the targets with the guns required in the stage description. The question is, would a match with something for everyone make everyone happy?

That is pretty close to what Noveske is, but 10 stages. Ask the competitors who shot it what they think. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This month marks the 34 year anniversary of the first SOF 3 gun competition and the sport has come a long way from the combat fantasy that it once was.

It's bigger and faster and gamier than its ever been; pushing guns, gear and people to their limit & gaining recognition for being the culmination of the action shooting sports. Option targets are a way to allow people who aren't amazing with every gun play to their strengths and have the best performance they possibly can overall. Just like "stage points factored scoring", its a way for people who suck at something (long range rifle) to minimize the impact. For others its a way to maximize their skill with their original discipline to "gain ground" on other competitors.

Properly managed any aspect of 3 Gun can be a great thing, or improperly managed it can be craptastic, but I think we can all agree on the following: More 3 gunners is better for everyone.

If "option targets" gets a dedicated pistolero / shotgunner / rifleman to come shoot 3 gun because they can maximize their performance with their "favorite" gun, then how is that not a good thing? The more, the merrier. Match directors should still have courses of fire that are 2 gun, 3 gun, and mandatory targets, or whatever they please. Personally I'd like to see MORE of everything. More 3 gunners. More targets downrange. More choice on what to shoot. More choice on HOW to shoot. More focus on shooting than running. More focus on shooting a shotgun than loading (a shotgun). More matches. More "hard shots". More everything.

With enough targets downrange, everyone can be satisfied.

The problem with this analysis is that a true option target event will quickly devolve into a rifle match with a bit of pistol and an even smaller bit of shotgun. It's just too difficult to design a large number of stages in which pistols dont outgun the shotgun and rifles don't outgun the pistol. At least pistols can keep up with rifles in the under 25 yd arena but shotgun shooters can load as fast as they want but they'll never catch good pistol shooters unless the targets require an ounce of lead to knock them over which isn't a true option target.

Actually yes that's probably true. Unless there was some huge advantage to using a shotgun, its use would probably die out in a completely "option target" environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is 3Gun, and transitions, as well as shooting several ways in one course of fire is, IMHO, part of the challenge. I do however include a pistol, shotgun and rifle only stage in my matches. But the focus should always be balance of the stages and the skills tested. Too many matches are just one flavor on all of the stages and don't test a wide enough array of skills. MDs who shoot at at least a decent level and have been around for a while and understand the elements needed to be a well rounded shooter. They tend to have the matches that, to me, test the whole spectrum of shooters the most.

Interesting that you say that because the FN3G is coming up in 2 weeks

http://www.lchico5u.com/FNH3G.html

Each course of fire is themed after other major 3G matches -

  • CMMG - YES option targets
  • Rockcastle Pro/Am - YES option targets
  • USPSA Multi-gun - YES option targets
  • 3GN Pro Series - NO option targets
  • Superstition Mystery Mountain - YES very specific options
  • Ozark - YES option targets
  • Tarheel - NO options
  • Rocky Mountain - YES options
  • Blue Ridge - NO options

So here's a mix of courses with different themes, some options, some no options, some 2 guns, some 3 guns. Maybe even some interesting gaming opportunities? Who knows but it looks cool.

And yes, shooters can choose to make this a pistol heavy match, but it may not be the fastest way to shoot based on 1) target presentation 2) dump locations 3) shooting positions 4) gameplans 5) strengths/weaknesses

***I should add that the info above relates to this match's courses of fire having or not having option targets. I don't know if all the matches they're named after also encourage / discourage option targets.***

Edited by Moltke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...