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

Recommended Posts

The IMA-SMM3G rules as locally circulated are PROVISIONAL - we will be beta testing them at Rio Salado in the coming months. NOTHING IS SET IN STONE AT THIS TIME, and I would not encourage folks to spend significant $$$ on equipment for the new divisions until the rules are finalized later in the year. Our first match under these provisional rules will be on Saturday... watch out for some minor tweaks based on our experience and customer feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quit screwing with HM! :(

I could some what understand it if there were minimal particiation in the two HM divisions at SMM3G. But!...

It makes no sense to combine two viable divisions that have (and had in the past) plenty of shooters in each at SMM3G. On a local level, maybe...but those shooting those divisions on a local level already know that there are few to compete with, yet still choose to go there, must be a reason.

Might as well combine Tac Scope and Tac Iron using the same reasoning...

jj

Eta; if you allow 9mm in the HM mix, Eddie and I will haunt you till the end of time! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep screwing with HM! It should be one small division not two tiny ones.

I like what Richard is trying to do. My only change would either

1) make the mag limit 140 mm and keep it .45 ACP

2) make the mag limit 140 mm and make it .40 cal and up but have a SOF style power factor of 175-180.

I think the Stealth division has a LOT of potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with JJ that HM aint broke. I would be just fine with one, combined division. I would also be fine with playing with pistol and shotgun mag limits, but not rifle. I only say that because all 308 battle rifles have 20rd mags, but only the AR10 has higher capacity, cost effective mags readily available. Higher cap rifle mags would reward AR10's singularly. Anything other than 308, 12ga pump and 45acp is not heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with JJ that HM aint broke. I would be just fine with one, combined division. I would also be fine with playing with pistol and shotgun mag limits, but not rifle. I only say that because all 308 battle rifles have 20rd mags, but only the AR10 has higher capacity, cost effective mags readily available. Higher cap rifle mags would reward AR10's singularly. Anything other than 308, 12ga pump and 45acp is not heavy.

This! espcially the last sentence!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't we all just get along...

  1. What is it about a pump action on the shotgun that makes it "HEAVY" or gets it classified as "HeMan"?
  2. What is it about iron sights on a rifle that makes it "HEAVY" or gets it classified as "HeMan"?
  3. Don't mess with the .45!!!

I see these weapon platform requirements as demanding some level of expertise in a different skill-set outside of the Tac-Scope and Open Divisions... but I don't see what makes them an essential element of defining the heavy metal element of 3-gun. The Soldier of Fortune matches apparently form a historical basis for the definitions, but I have not seen a notice for a SoF match in my 3-Gun experience.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy shooting in the "Heavy Metal" division because of the special challenges it presents but I am confused and intrigued about some of the positions taken regarding pump versus semi-auto and iron sight systems versus magnified optics... and let's not forget pistol caliber. I have difficulty finding some of the targets at RM3G with the naked eye... let alone find them over an iron sight, so I shoot in the "scoped" version. Does that make me a bad person?

At the end of the day (and the discussion) I just hope that I am not the only one signing up for the "Heavy Metal" divisions in a future match. There is nothing "wrong" with the RM3G ruleset regarding Heavy Metal, just as there is nothing wrong with the IMA (SMM3G) ruleset from my perspective... (but I could be drawn into an argument debate over the USPSA ruleset), but I think we can agree that they are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your questions and perspective is/are valid. It's all about recoil. 308 or Nato spec PF. As soon as you say 30cal, you open the door to AK's and 300blk, which have much less recoil. 45acp has more felt recoil than 40cal in major PF. In addition, it's much harder to get a 45 to run at or near minor PF. Pump because, of more recoil than autos. I am personally pretty flexible with most other aspects of Heavy. Magazine capacities, glass, supported etc. Just don't want to see the core of the division intent erroded. That being increased recoil. People often present the argument that low recoil 308 "can" be loaded. But you will quickly reach a reliability threshold in most 308 semi autos. With my gas block wide open, my rifles won't cycle less than about 340pf. Nato is about 360-370pf. 45 can also be down loaded... to a point. The only way to get a 45 down to minor PF, is to run really light bullets, which are generally feed problematic. By that point, you have created a round so far out of the realm of normal 45, it isn't worth the effort just to place a little better in a major match. Anyone who's been shooting long enough to be competitive in Heavy has already figured this out. Once in a while you run into a good shooter from another division, who jumps in looking for an easy trophy, but they aren't gonna take the time to reinvent the wheel just to dabble in a small division. I have a few boxes of ultra light recoil shells in the basement, and almost never use them. I still have to knock down the same targets as everyone else so I run the same 2.75-3.00 dram loads as everyone else.

Mess with pistol mags, fine. Mess with rifle mags, I can deal with it. Allow 1x glass in Iron, sounds good to me. I would even be fine with allowing multiple glass in Heavy Scope. Just don't mess with the recoil aspect of Heavy, or you errode the fundamental reason for the divisions. If the divisions go unsupported, then create some thing new and call it something different. I'll show up and play either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree, and we have no intention of weakening the power requirements. We did dabble with a lower PF a few years back (so that intermediate cartridges could play) but it did not increase HM participation at all so we moved the PF back to where it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mag capacities aren't going to get more people to participate in heavy. You're just making it an AR 10 only division .

IMO Heavy Irons and Heavy scope should both shoot 10 round 45's and 8+1 PUMP shotguns.

That way they are actually distinct divisions from Tac irons and Tac Optics. Otherwise, why bother?

Don't want to shoot a pump or 45, there are three other divisions to participate in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mag capacities aren't going to get more people to participate in heavy. You're just making it an AR 10 only division ...

Not really. Reliable 30-round magazines are available for the FN-FAL, as are reliable 25-round magazines for the M1A and SR-25/LR-308 (both of which, I am told, can be extended to 30). The question of whether 50% more rounds in a non-magnified rifle balances the benefit of a scope is an open one, which is why we are beta-testing the new HM rules. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mag capacities aren't going to get more people to participate in heavy. You're just making it an AR 10 only division ...

Not really. Reliable 30-round magazines are available for the FN-FAL, as are reliable 25-round magazines for the M1A and SR-25/LR-308 (both of which, I am told, can be extended to 30). The question of whether 50% more rounds in a non-magnified rifle balances the benefit of a scope is an open one, which is why we are beta-testing the new HM rules. Time will tell.

At your matches it will. You guys don't push distance hard enough to give magnification a huge advantage. At Rio... I'd take the extra ammo any day. At Whittington matches... That would be a much harder choice. I'll be interested to see how the experiment goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...