USPSA 3-Gun rules suggestions

[Religious Shooter]

Mr. Gary,

I can't find the thread... but I seem to remember reading that you were looking for input from people for the new(er) USPSA 3-Gun rules.

In short I'd like to suggest two things:

I. Allow 20+ point targets for rifle and shotgun.

II.Limit Limited/Tactical division magazines to 30 rounds. Relegate 31+ round magazines to Open (i.e. No 40's or Betas in Limited/Tactical).

My (long) reasoning:

I. Allow 20+ point targets for rifle and shotgun.

My motivation for allowing the 20+ point valuation of some targets are to make pigeon flippers and moving targets (clays) a valid prop for use in USPSA 3-Gun.

According to the current rules for shotgun and rifle:

9.4.1.1 In order to recognize a difficult shot in a course of fire, a small number of metal and/or frangible targets may score double value for a hit. The use of such targets is restricted to not more than 10% of the total number of targets in the match. Their use must have been approved during the course review process and they must be clearly identified in the written stage briefing.

Anecdotal experience at the USPSA 3-Gun Nationals in Reno shows that 5 points don’t work:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...pigeon+flippers

Erik Warren:

On the pistol/shotgun stage with the door, swinger, and trolly, where you were supposed to shoot 3 poppers and 3 clays/charcoals, a certain RO who shall not be named was the first shooter and he ignored the disappearing targets before the slugs.

The same RO shooter was first again on the next stage, the shotgun/pistol side-to-side with the low tombstone-shaped port on the left. And again he ignored the flipped, disappearing charcoal.

After a few more ROs did this, the M.D. decided if the pre-match RO shooters weren't going for the disappearing targets, the real-match shooters wouldn't go for them, and he replaced them with static targets.

At the recent Area 2 3-Gun Match (Stage 1 and 2) 10 points didn’t work either:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21448

http://uspsa2.org/match_results/match_disp...050212&club=5DG

We can’t have failure to shoot (AKA FTE’s) or miss penalties due to 9.9.1 and 9.9.2. But by allowing 20+ point targets we can “get around” 9.9.1 and 9.9.2.

As of now, using the current rules, (for the most part) these targets aren’t even worth engaging.

II. In rifle relegate 31+ round magazines to Open

Between rifle Open and Tactical/Limited… there really isn’t much of a difference separating the divisions.

In pistol there is the Open=170mm and Limited=140mm rule.

In shotgun there is Open=10+1 and Limited/Tactical = 8+1

There is also popular opinion that He-Man/Heavy Metal be limited to 20 rounds.

Why not limit the magazines in Limited/Tactical to 30 rounds?

By limiting it to 30 rounds we are cointinuing to be consistent with the underlying characteristic of Limited/Tactical --- that Limited/Tactical is a financially more affordable division (when compared to Open) to compete in. By limiting it to 30 rounds, the Tactical/Limited shooter won't be obligated to buy $50 40 round magazines and $250 100 round Beta C-Mags to be competitive.

[BigDave]

I agree with RS on the mag capacity issue for Tactical and Limited (US Rules), however I don't agree with the argument regarding financials. Unless there is a limit placed on magazine capacity, there is no real difference between Open and Tactical rifle, not that really seperates them anyway into unique divisions.

The reason I don't agree with the financial argument is that, currently, the only thing that seperates a JP Open rifle from JP Tactical rifle is (1) a 2nd optic sight and (2) a bigger comp. Big deal (of course I say that and I've never shot Open, but it doesn't seem like a big difference at face value.) The rifle is still a $2400 rifle at the base. The decision should be made on how the gun is used and how the accessories attached to the gun aid the shooter in completing the COF.

The second reason I don't agree with the financial argument is look at optics being put on many Tactical rifles. Trijicon TA01 - $800, TA11 - $1000, Accupoint $650, IOR $650, Leupold 1.1-5x - $400, Aimpoint Comp ML - $350. And those prices don't consider mounts. If you think someone who drops $350-$1000 on a scope will balk at a $250 magazine, I think you're kidding yourself.

PS - thanks for starting this thread

[kimel]

I would support the mag capacity rule and agree with BD that the financial reason is NOT the reason to do this.

I would apply the same rule to Limited as well, not just tactical.

All this being said there are significant differances between tactical and open...they just aren't necessarily on the rifle. If you want to run an open pistol then you are in open. If you want to use a comp on the shotgun along with speed loaders...you are in open.

But I am still gonna buy a C-Mag even if such a rule were to come in to play...because I can! I just have to pay off my new limited pistol first.

[George]

I also think the 30 round mag limit for T & L is a good idea, but believe that it will piss off a lot of folks that consider their ownership of extra capacity AR mags a competitive advantage in these divisions. My reasoning is that open is the only place special purpose attachments belong. To extend this, I believe redi-mags and double mag clamping should also be restricted to open as they resemble the bipod in that they present an advantage when deployed against re-charging from the belt only. IMO, most gear gimcrackery just plain belongs in open.

Extra point values on specific targets should be a variable in EZ-Winscore that can be applied as required in any stage and not just for rifle/shotgun, pistol paper get’s ignored too. The stage designer should be able to add a difficult shot, or a disappearing target and designate it as the math requires to prevent target skipping whenever required. A specific value will not do the job, only a variable that can be set per target, per stage will really do the job. 10 points might work for a paper disappearing target on a fast pistol stage, but it might take 30-40 points to do the job on a LD rifle stage with real difficult shots from bad positions.

--

Regards,

[3GunF1Guy]

To make the separation from a 40rd mag to a 30 rd mag you would really need to have an array of targets of more than 15, without movement, to give the open guy an advantage. You might get that at the Ironman but not anywhere else. If at any point the shooter needs to take more than 3 steps, a mag change can happen with no loss in time. Why limit the mag size in rifle if it will be essentially irrelevant?

Scott Peterson

[BigDave]

I haven't looked at my rulebook in this regard, but is there a COF round restriction on 3-Gun or Multi? Is it the same that applies to pistol?

[Religious Shooter]

To make the separation from a 40rd mag to a 30 rd mag you would really need to have an array of targets of more than 15, without movement, to give the open guy an advantage. You might get that at the Ironman but not anywhere else. If at any point the shooter needs to take more than 3 steps, a mag change can happen with no loss in time. Why limit the mag size in rifle if it will be essentially irrelevant?

Scott Peterson

Too some degree I though so to. That is until the A2 match.

I think reloading is a much bigger ordeal in rifle than it is in pistol.

But even in pistol, if you take a look at the times between pistol divisions (say Limited vs. L10) over the course of the entire match you will see that round capacity does make a difference. Limited times are always faster than L10 over the course of the match.

Shoot enough matches at varied clubs all over the place and you'll eventually see the advantage of a working 40+ round magazine. Personally if I only shot my local club match I wouldn't see an advantage. But you go to these big/special matches... the course designers tend to go hog wild on the round count.

To paraphrase somebody here in the forums... you gotta take the fumble factor into account. Furthermore Cooley recommends a 40 round magazine in his class and Burkett in his video recommends that it's better if you can skip reloading the rifle altogether. If those grande peros believe and say that there's gotta be something to it.

[wide45]

I. Allow 20+ point targets for rifle and shotgun.

My motivation for allowing the 20+ point valuation of some targets are to make pigeon flippers and moving targets (clays) a valid prop for use in USPSA 3-Gun.

20 pts.? Insane! The other targets will mean nothing. The only important part of the stage will be hitting the clays.

The flippers might be cool, but that does not make them a good thing.

[Religious Shooter]

Go ahead and don't engage those static targets and see what that gets you.

Those static targets are worth 5 points a shot. If you don't engage them you get an FTE and you get a mike for a total of 20 points in penalties.

A static target is essentially worth 25 points. You better engage them.

On the other hand if you have a flipper and you don't engage it, by the current rules, at the maximum you are only missing out on 10 points. Since it is disappearing you don't get an FTE or a mike... well you get a circle mike which really doesn't carry any penalties. So at the most they are only worth 10 actual points. Even though they are waaaaay harder than a like sized static target.

By allowing 20 point flippers you're essentially closing the gap between a static target and a "disappering" target. You still wouldn't incur FTE's or mikes with the flippers. So with the 20 point valuation they are actually still lower in value than static targets.

BTW that's why I have that "+". 20 points may still not be enough.

[John Dunn]

The nice thing about non-USPSA matches is that the Match Director is free to assign point values as he sees fit to encourage shooters to engage those targets. Not sure IPSC shooters could stomach the idea of variable value targets, but I like the concept.

I'm all for the 30 round limit in Tactical and Limited.

[gl]

'I'm all for the 30 round limit in Tactical and Limited.'

Come on guys! I thought this sport was about experimentation and leaving it to the shooter to fiquire out (game) what they need to compete effectively.

That being said, I think allowing more than a 30rd capacity is reasonable since folks carry them in guns they use daily, just look in the front passenger seat of my truck everyday. If someone wants to slug aroung a heavy beta mag on a stage I say let them. If that is going to be the rule we need to prohibit Redimags, stock mounted mag carriers and devices, dual mag holders and the like because they allow a quicker reload and make folks only have one 30rd, or lesser capacity, feeding device in the weapon (opps!!! I said weapon!! LOL!) during a course of fire.

Why don't we limit them to 10 mags and call it the IDPA rifle class.

What is next?

A limit on the size of the front sight post or rear aperture?

Weight limit on the rifle?

Trigger pull weight limit?

Are far as in open class, this is this same line of thinking that prohibits the use of two optics on a rifle when in real life they are in use in the sand pit right now (JP's ACOG-NSN mount with a J-point and other setups with forward mounts). The way I look at it is if it works go for it.

I do not see people carrying around tube type speed loaders for shotguns though.........

Guy Hawkins

[Religious Shooter]

We can still experiment and push the equipment envelope. Just do it in Open.

Again, if you take a look at the other equipment divisions:

Pistol:

Limited/Tactical = 140mm mag length restriction

Open = 170 mm mag length restriction

Shotgun:

Limited/Tactical = 8+1 shells

Open = 10+1 shells

For the longest time we have had these limitations. Why don't we have it in Limited/Tactical Rifle?

Yes I agree with pushing the equipment envelope. But again... let's do it in Open. That's why Open Division is called "Open" and Limited is "Limited". "Open" meaning you can basically do anything. "Limited" as in limited modifications.

As far as Tactical Division, I think USPSA just named it "Tactical" to be the same as the IMGA faction of our sport. Even if that division is supposed to be "Tactical" it's arguable that C-Mags or even 40's for the AR are not "tactical".

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jul2003/a072803b.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Mag

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tact...t=000244#000005

http://lightfighter.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=73...61&m=2096086481

And heck I still think the $ argument is valid. The tape and piece of wood for taping together magazines are cheap. Even if you bought a mag coupler they only cost $15. Redi-mags are essentially a version of a taped mag. There are only so many ways you can carry an AR magazine. I say leave the magazine carrier issue as is.

What is next?

A limit on the size of the front sight post or rear aperture?

Weight limit on the rifle?

Trigger pull weight limit?

I wouldn't support those restrictions. And if you take a look USPSA doesn't have such restrictions on the other guns. IPSC might. But were talking about USPSA.

Are far as in open class, this is this same line of thinking that prohibits the use of two optics on a rifle when in real life they are in use in the sand pit right now (JP's ACOG-NSN mount with a J-point and other setups with forward mounts). The way I look at it is if it works go for it.

It sounds like you want to demolish the entire Open/Limited/Tactical division and just have Open.

BTW you can use the above two sight set-up in Open. I daresay that Open Division is the REAL tactical division in USPSA 3-Gun. Shotgun speed loaders are supposedly used by SWAT. Cans (which put you in open due to the size restrictions) are legal in open. A dot on a pistol (backed up by irons) is legal in Open. Flashlights mounted on the pistol is legal in Open. Etc..

If you really want to be "tactical" guy, Open Division is the place for you.

Tactical Division is mis-named.

[lcambre]

I shoot in tactical and don't want to see any equipment restrictions added. I'd also like to see the round count restriction on shotguns changed to a tube length restriction. This would be a better match to the way limited gun round count is restricted. As far as 20 point targets, if it isn't worth going after with the current rules it deserves to be ignored.

[Religious Shooter]

As far as 20 point targets, if it isn't worth going after with the current rules it deserves to be ignored.

That would mean the flippers would only be used by non-USPSA clubs. If they are not worth going for, what would the point of even having them?

I think the goal is to make USPSA as fun as the other organizations. If you take away the flipper USPSA matches just won't be as fun and challenging.

As far as using tube length restriction vs. a round count restriction that would make the Benelli the choice for shotgun. The Remington, Winchester, etc. people would have one round less due to the Benelli's ability of being ghost loaded. Starting with one round less isn't a good thing, especially in shotgun, for the non Benelli shooters.

I'd rather not have to buy a Benelli to be competitive equipment-wise and I would like to see flippers as a viable prop in USPSA competition.

[glockster96]

I believe that different pistols can fit more rounds into 140 mm than my STI, but I certainly don't feel that I have to buy them to be competitive. I agree with the above poster that stated we should go with a magazine length restriction. But then again, I shoot a Benelli.

I am against MORE restrictions to Tactical Division. "Nough said on that.

I do agree that higher point values may be needed to make flippers viable.

P.S. There is a gentleman on the USPSA website advertising Beta mags that will have them in stock next week, if you need one.

[Religious Shooter]

I believe that different pistols can fit more rounds into 140 mm than my STI, but I certainly don't feel that I have to buy them to be competitive. I agree with the above poster that stated we should go with a magazine length restriction. But then again, I shoot a Benelli.

How would you enforce a magazine tube length? Where would you measure from?

As far as the one round or two advantage of the Para in the pistol, look at it this way. With shotguns you basically loose 1+ seconds for every round you have to load. You don't have that 1+ second disadvantage in pistol.

For argument's sake, say you did. And every single time you reloaded an SVI/STI you lose one second over a Para. In that case wouldn't you switch to a Para?

A one round advantage would be a huge advantage in shotgun.

[glockster96]

How would you enforce a magazine tube length? Where would you measure from?

As far as the one round or two advantage of the Para in the pistol, look at it this way. With shotguns you basically loose 1+ seconds for every round you have to load. You don't have that 1+ second disadvantage in pistol.

For argument's sake, say you did. And every single time you reloaded an SVI/STI you lose one second over a Para. In that case wouldn't you switch to a Para?

A one round advantage would be a huge advantage in shotgun.

Measured from the end o' the barrel seems to work for mag tube length. However, I don't think the capacity thing is that big of an issue, and certainly isn't a hill I would die trying to conquer. The previous SSMM and RM3G rules had magazine length vs. capacity restrictions - and there were shotgun models besides benellis being used to good effect.

If a fella is losing 1+ seconds per round reloading his shotgun, I think more practice is in order. At least that's why I'm practicing.

For the question of switching to a Para.....Nah, I like my Fat Free to much to switch. If I was losing a second per reload, I would figure out somewhere else to make it up. I would also interject that those one or 2 rounds can make a difference in stage tactics and MAY save some time....very occasionally, but it could happen.

The thing that I would HATE to see is for us to become so obssessed about another shooter having a 1 or 2 round advantage (or 10 or 70 round in the case of the rifle) that we make the division equipment rules so restrictive that only a certain type of firearm is needed to compete, ala the way some other folks done with their organizations. Innovation is key in competition, and I think that tactical is great the way that it currently is. I know open is the traditional playground for innovation, but I think we may be able to work out some equipment issues in competition that may help the LE or Mil. communities in real life. I also believe those innovations will PROBABLY come from tactical division.

I could be all wet on the above. Who knows. All I really know is that I have more time to shoot this year and will be out on the range following whatever equipment rules are in place for the 3 gun game that I am playing....and having a ball as I do it.

[Religious Shooter]

Measured from the end o' the barrel seems to work for mag tube length. However ... The previous SSMM and RM3G rules had magazine length vs. capacity restrictions - and there were shotgun models besides benellis being used to good effect.

RM3G has round restrictions (6.8.9: 9 rounds in the shotgun max at the start) including the length restriction (6.8.3: 22" barrel with the mag tube not going past 1").

Per the way it's written, the Benelli has no advantage over the the Remmy and others in RM3G because of the round restriction. I doubt you are gonna be ghost loading in the middle of a course.

If you use the length rule without a round restriction rule (which Louis and yourself seems to want) you would be giving the Benelli shooters a distinct advantage.

And if you want a length restriction and a round restriction... well hell that doesn't really make much sense. The way RM3G have their rule for this issue looks a bit convoluted. Why not just limit the rounds to keep it simple? Who cares how long the gun's barrel is? You're just making the guys who have 22+" barrels run in Open.

I don't think the capacity thing is that big of an issue, and certainly isn't a hill I would die trying to conquer.

Comming from a guy that already seems to have the "right" equipment... that comes across as kind of empty.

For the question of switching to a Para.....Nah, I like my Fat Free to much to switch. If I was losing a second per reload, I would figure out somewhere else to make it up. I would also interject that those one or 2 rounds can make a difference in stage tactics and MAY save some time....very occasionally, but it could happen.

Fat free 6" Paras are legal in limited. Check out TGO's SA from a previous National.

Making up 1 second somewhere else... ?

The thing that I would HATE to see is for us to become so obssessed about another shooter having a 1 or 2 round advantage (or 10 or 70 round in the case of the rifle) that we make the division equipment rules so restrictive that only a certain type of firearm is needed to compete, ala the way some other folks done with their organizations.

I'm not following you there bro. How's limiting Tactical/Limited to 30 rounds gonna make this happen.

On the other hand, if you limit the shotgun's tube length and not have a round restriction you are making the Benelli the likely competitive choice for shotgun. Here you are definitely making the "equipment rules so restrictive that only a certain type of firearm is needed to compete."

If a fella is losing 1+ seconds per round reloading his shotgun, I think more practice is in order. At least that's why I'm practicing.

You are a bad ass if you consistently do reloads in competition (not in practice doing drills) less than 1 second. You are with good company if you average <1 second per shell.

The B shooters (me included) needed about 19 seconds on the average to load an additional 6+ shells and shoot 6 clays in a semi-field course at A2.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21448

But say you are a certified bad ass who averages 3/4's of a second to shuck in one shell, you're still 3/4's of a second down! You go to a major match where you have four shotgun stages you loose 3/4 x 4 = 3 seconds just for having the wrong shotgun. That would suck! Think of it as having a draw that was 3/4's of a second longer due to the equipment. I'd change that puppy quick.

I say leave the 8+1 rule alone.

[glockster96]

You are a bad ass

Thanks RS. At least we got that point out of the way.

(6.8.9: 9 rounds in the shotgun max at the start)

I would be happy as a clam if we went to this rule. See how it is different from the current?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't support any rules that are more restrictive than the current. You make some good points, but any time we lose equipment to rules is a dark day.

See you on the range.

[BigDave]

The thing that I would HATE to see is for us to become so obssessed about another shooter having a 1 or 2 round advantage (or 10 or 70 round in the case of the rifle) that we make the division equipment rules so restrictive that only a certain type of firearm is needed to compete, ala the way some other folks done with their organizations. Innovation is key in competition, and I think that tactical is great the way that it currently is. I know open is the traditional playground for innovation, but I think we may be able to work out some equipment issues in competition that may help the LE or Mil. communities in real life. I also believe those innovations will PROBABLY come from tactical division.

I disagree. The way things are becomming in Tactical, it isn't another firearm thats needed to be competitive, it is a magazine and its capacity. And, that's the question we have here. This is a competition and innovation will come as result (read: JP Rifles = competitive innovation), regardless of division.

A different way to illustrate the concept here is Open vs. Modified in the pistol division. Yeah, comps and optics are allowed in both, but you limit mag length, caliber and gun size to seperate them into their own unique division for the purpose of competition. In the context we are currently discussing, Mag length/capacity is the question that is being asked.

PS - leave the shotgun stuff as is

[glockster96]

BD- Well stated. I still stand by my original comment regarding capacity on rifles - leave as is. The advantage gained with the HIGH HIGH capacity magazines are usually negligible, and I hate to see rules made just for the sake of making rules.

I would also agree that the MOST appropriate rule for shotgun is probably 8+1, much to the chagrin of my gamer's heart. I would like to see the change to 8+1 to start plus the mag length restriction, but again this is not that big of a deal to my view of the rules.

I think the biggest thing we can do for USPSA rules is to find a fix to the scoring of multi-gun stages and have a semi-consistent scoring system for all large 3 gun matches. That would be nice, but probably won't happen in my shooting lifetime.

[cking]

Tactical is supposed to be TACTICAL, which means something you would deploy with. So IMHO barrel length is something that you would consider. So limiting it to 22inch for both rifle and shotgun make sense. Also would you deploy with a 40/30/20 mags???? Depends on where you are deploying too. So I don't think mag limits make sense.

Muzzle brakes and comps, yes I'd deploy with them and the current length and diameter rules look OK

I would allow porting and comps on shotgun in tactical, because it is tactical to use them. Speed loaders I say no, Optics, most likely for shotgun use I have to say no.

Pistol, again I would use a box and say iron sights, if you can get a comp to work, fine, caliber I would use power factor. We all think 357Mag is tactical and 45acp hardball. So don't limit rounds, just size. that way people can innovate. So if you can get 20 rounds of major power factor say 165, and comp to fit in the box. That's good. Now some consider the 9mm to be tactical, OK set the power factor and let them have at it.

Lets not have what Pistol has turned into, leave the innovation in. I'm happy with Open, limit, tactical, with a heavy metal class.

Also for Heavy metal, lets not say it got to be pump shotgun, or limit it to 20 rounds for rifle, Just set a power factor for all three guns them let them fall into the open, limited, tactical class.

just any other IMHO

[davidwiz]

Do what the SMM3G match did, and allow grounding of 'hot' guns, provided the safety is on. It worked great and I think it is safer than the "speed unload".

-David

[SinistralRifleman]

Trooper class is the way of the future....no arguing over equipment details, you just have to carry it, and if it breaks you're screwed unless you're carrying the spare parts to fix it too.

About half the soldiers in our Military and Law Enforcement Gallery are using equipment that would place them in "open class" if they were shooting a match with it.

SSG Tharp, Doctor Optic on top of NSN ACOG:

http://www.cavalryarms.com/galleries/MLE/SSGTharpe2.jpg

Spc Snow with SST-590 and OKO sight on his issued Mossberg 500:

http://www.cavalryarms.com/galleries/MLE/SNOW-2.jpg

SSG Blough M16A4 with beta mag and bipod:

http://www.cavalryarms.com/galleries/MLE/Blough1.jpg

82nd with all kinds of stuff:

http://www.cavalryarms.com/galleries/MLE/82ndAbn.jpg

The only thing I think really matters between open and tactical is shotgun capacity and speed loaders....and its the only things I don't see real world users using.

[Jim Norman]

I read a bit about the "Trooper Class" I kind of like it, with a few exceptions.

I would say you must carry your rifle and pistol or your shotgun and pistol since it is highly unlikely you'd carry to long guns and a sidearm.

I would also state that you carry a certain ammo load as a minimum and allow for a resupply or rather require a resupply between stages.

That is, you will carry say 240 rounds of rifle or 100 rounds of Shotgun as well as 100 rounds of pistol at the start of every staqe. You must also carry a minimum of one quart of water. Also you must carry all of the repair parts, food etcetra that you wish to carry all day. Mandatory resupply of ammo and allowable resupply for water.

This would shall we say level the playing fied a bit.

One thing we might do is look at the non-special ops loadouts. In otherwords, just because certain groups utilize a piece of equipment for a specific task does not mean we allow it. We should look to the less specialized equipment. Remember, our particular system should and must cover the full range of scenarios we expect to encounter in a match. Given the range facilities this could mean rifle targets from 2 to 350 meters.

Jim Norman