P.E. Kelley Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I am very confident that is not correct the intent was 30 round magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OscarMike Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I am very confident that is not correct the intent was 30 round magazines. That's kind of what I figured too. Weird wording Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The Surefire 60 as is would be too long. Now if someone cut an inch off the bottom and bent the bottom to fit the baseplate...well. Please tell me we won't be trying to guess rules based on intent. Because if I had to guess intent I would say they are looking for a max length and maximum ammo in mag doesn't count. Cuz that's what the rule actually says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langenator Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I am very confident that is not correct the intent was 30 round magazines. That's kind of what I figured too. Weird wording I agree. But the way it's written, as long as the length isn't longer than a standard 30-rounder, it would be legal. Anyone have a side-by-side pic of a 30-round PMag and a Beta-C? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I am not a fan of some things in the new rulebook, however, the range lawyering is one of those things that turns off many people to some other sports. 3Gun, LONG before the people running 3GN had ever even shot a 3Gun match, was a straight forward, common sense approach. One that has been lost over the past several years dues to several influences. While I agree that the rules should be well written, I also agree that looking for rules loopholes in order to gain an advantage is not one of the foundations of 3Gun in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I'm not even sure if you could consider that a loophole Mark. It specifically says in the rule there is no maximum ammo capacity. It also doesn't include a design stipulation that says only double column mags, or no drums, or quad stack mags. As near as I can tell it lists a length restriction to no longer than a standard 30 round mag and that is it. If it's an accidental loophole its a remarkably large one. And one they could have fixed by putting the rules out to members for comment before saying they were in effect. Simply putting the rules out to members for 30 days and asking for input will fix the vast majority of nutty rules like this one. I hate to keep harping on it, but it's a comment that has been made time and again about 3GN. It was a comment made about USPSA Multigun. We finally figured it out and listened and ended up with a rule book that even Kurt Miller doesn't hate. Why try to reinvent the wheel? Take input from people with experience and get it right the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The whole reason this thread was started was to seek some input, and some of the things brought up in this thread where addressed, the magazine length rule was brought up early in the thread and it was not one of the things changed. My guess is that it slipped through because it would be silly if the intent of the rule was to allow snail mags or modified surefires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickB Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Define 30 round factory configuration length. Is it USGI aluminium 30rd length? If so, Troy 30rd mags and Magpul 30rd mags are illegal, as they are longer than USGI. 100rd C-Mags are legal as they are shorter than a USGI 30rd mag. What if someone wanted to shoot an AK in a 3GN match? Does that put them in Open because of the mag length? :-) Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I agree you are correct Chuck. More of a generalization type of comment than on the specific magazine limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuflehundon Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If the intent was 30 round mags, it would be easier to just state a magazine capacity limit of 30 rounds. I think that was the intent, but it was poorly worded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I agree the competitive world would be a lot easier for match directors and rule makers if everyone would just do what they are supposed to. But that's a bit like herding cats. Even IDPA can't keep people from trying to gain an advantage over what they should be doing. Shawn, if the goal in putting out the rules was to seek input they did it all wrong. Because the way it was presented to me was, here are the new rules. Followed by a crap load of bitching and a, fine, fine we'll change this if it will shut you up type response. If you want input, fine put it out there with the caveat that the rules aren't effective for 30 days and then tell people to look them over. Or even better, (and I can't say for sure this wasn't done) send it out to a bunch of seasoned competitors, MD's, and people who have been doing this for awhile, and let them hash it out before you put it out for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If the intent was 30 round mags, it would be easier to just state a magazine capacity limit of 30 rounds. I think that was the intent, but it was poorly worded. If I had to guess, they are trying to keep it roughly 30 rounds without making the RO try to count to 30 rounds while the competitor is shooting. And also to not bump someone who accidentally crams 31 into their PMAG into Open. Makes sense to me, but again, poorly worded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziebart Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If we want to use intent, then that intent should be published with the rules. The outlaw matches know the intent, because they wrote their own rules. A club picking up these up, having never ran a 3gun before may not know. Even if a person wants a black and white rulebook, I think it is still a good idea to have a section on the writers intended purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Chuck, I did not say that I thought posting on BEnos was the way I would vet a new ruleset, just that it seems that this was the case. I would have thought it better to put the rules in front of the people who actually planned on shooting these matches instead of just the yahoos who normally post here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thermobollocks Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If the intent was 30 round mags, it would be easier to just state a magazine capacity limit of 30 rounds. I think that was the intent, but it was poorly worded. If I had to guess, they are trying to keep it roughly 30 rounds without making the RO try to count to 30 rounds while the competitor is shooting. And also to not bump someone who accidentally crams 31 into their PMAG into Open. Makes sense to me, but again, poorly worded. Production doesn't get a break on accidentally jamming 11 into a 17-rounder. Maybe they could have an official magazine box, like the IPSC box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJW Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 If the intent was 30 round mags, it would be easier to just state a magazine capacity limit of 30 rounds. I think that was the intent, but it was poorly worded. If I had to guess, they are trying to keep it roughly 30 rounds without making the RO try to count to 30 rounds while the competitor is shooting. And also to not bump someone who accidentally crams 31 into their PMAG into Open. Makes sense to me, but again, poorly worded. Yep, and then the rule should be written as "Rifle magazines with a 30-round maximum design capacity in the cartridge used. Magazine length may not be extended past that provided with a stock baseplate. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ming the Merciless Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I agree that the rule changes, while 3GN is entitled to do what they want, are really a mess. My favorite is the touching the rope penalty. How many shooters can feel a rope touching their pants leg??? If you are too lazy to use wooden fault lines, come up with an alternative that doesn't involve what will surely become a subjective and somewhat unenforceable rule. That's going to be a rough one for me since I have very little feeling in my right thigh due to nerve damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dauntedfuture Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I think the idea behind the whole rope thing was that some people have been known to push way way out on the rope to get better angles if there is not a foot fault line to go with the rope. I'm not sure the intent was to penalize people that are brushing the rope.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.E. Kelley Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Just kinda curious...how many of our thread contributors are signed up for any of the regional matches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Just kinda curious...how many of our thread contributors are signed up for any of the regional matches? One (Virginia) plus the Bushmaster match in April. It will also be interesting to see what FNH adopts for its match which generally runs using its own rules that have included rifle magazine limitations outside of Open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'm signed up for the one in a couple weeks. And was considering shooting Factory. Really don't know now since I don't know what the rules intend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'm signed up for the one in a couple weeks. And was considering shooting Factory. Really don't know now since I don't know what the rules intend. Pretty sure 3GN "Factory" should always be placed in quotation marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Since I just poked fun at the "one hit wonder" thing and didn't really contribute anything one way or the other, I guess my "not any" doesn't really count does it....non contributing and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langenator Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'm shooting the Budget match in April, plus I shoot a monthly club match that I assume will be using the new rules. I've had thoughts about shooting factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Just kinda curious...how many of our thread contributors are signed up for any of the regional matches? I'm signed up for at least 2 matches under 3gn rules, including a regional. At this point my plan is to bring my usually tac-optics gear and let someone else decide what division I'm shooting if they want to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now