Matt in TN Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I think you mean a lot of shooters complain it's too fast. Not too easy. Those old good shooters aren't as good as they used to be compared to these new studs. I know cause I'm dropping in the finals too. No - too easy. If I'm not challenged I get bored quickly. I make a point to seek out shooters bettern than me (not hard usually!) and shoot with them, and I make a point to seek out matches that challenge me and keep practicing and coming back until I can do it. I vote for more long shots. In Highpower 600 yds is considered "medium range". ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moltke Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 So if these matches your attending are so easy turn your winning right? Obviously the question is in jest but the point I'm trying to make is there should be an accuracy challenge blended well with a speed challenge for every target in a match. If it's too far one way or the other it doesn't make for a very well rounded event or a fun time. Long range should be a part of the sport but it alone should not be the deciding factor for matches, which if there is long range then it often contributes more time on the clock than anything else. Is this good or bad? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunCat Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) From Webster (the dictionary):Full Definition of CARBINE 1 : a short-barreled lightweight firearm originally used by cavalry 2 : a light short-barreled repeating rifle that is used as a supplementary military arm or for hunting in dense brush Probably is not "the" answer... but it does address some of the recent comments. Back in the day* a firearm was called a “carbine” when it was a shorter version of an existing Rifle or Musket (and both were of the same caliber). We can also throw “Fusil” into the mix. A Fusil (e.g. Officer's Fusil) generally being a long arm both smaller in caliber and shorter in length than the standard issue Rifle or Musket. * The days of of Rogers, Washington and Cornwallis So...had the AR-10 platform only come first we could all be running AR-15 Fusils Yeah...Every now and then instead of “Load and Make Ready” I am tempted to tell the shooter to ” Prepare your Firelock” Edited October 30, 2015 by GunCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Be all that Webster's historical stuff as it may. ARMALITE and COLT manufactured and sold the firearm, that we now know as the AR-15/M16 family of firearms, DESIGNATED AS A CARBINE. They made it, they did the marketing, they got the contract with the military, by pushing a firearm THEY BUILT AS A CARBINE!! Therefore, ergo, they are ALL CARBINES! Dare if I must, I can even give further proof that they are/were considered CARBINES....each and everyone!!! When the short barreled XM-177 came to being it was billed as the Colt XM-177.....SUBMACHINEGUN......NOT CARBINE. Historical note the XM-177 and XM-177E1 were re-designated as the CAR-15, that was just the model designation. the C didn't stand for carbine anymore than the A stands for "Assault" With all this in mind I don't feel that 3-gun in general is served by target farther away than 400 yards or so, with 300 yards probably a better number. That is the effective envelope of the ammunition in common use. Targets are generally visible in this range. They are in the +/- of error for a person that only has a 25-50 yard range to sight in on. They don't frustrate a middle of the pack shooter. They don't require pricey upper end bullets or ammunition. They don't require real spendy 1- 80 bazzilion X scopes. They don't require real high end barrels to eke the utmost in sub M.O.A. performance. The distance is still plenty long to test good marksmanship and field positions and the folks who can do that will still be winning, but the folks who aren't really up to speed can still accomplish the task. These thoughts brought to you by RNT... the guys who brought you the 4 M.O.A. target concept! Edited October 30, 2015 by kurtm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Kurt wins the round and the match! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Bacus Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 With all this in mind I don't feel that 3-gun in general is served by target farther away than 400 yards or so, with 300 yards probably a better number. That is the effective envelope of the ammunition in common use. Targets are generally visible in this range. They are in the +/- of error for a person that only has a 25-50 yard range to sight in on. They don't frustrate a middle of the pack shooter. They don't require pricey upper end bullets or ammunition. They don't require real spendy 1- 80 bazzilion X scopes. They don't require real high end barrels to eke the utmost in sub M.O.A. performance. The distance is still plenty long to test good marksmanship and field positions and the folks who can do that will still be winning, but the folks who aren't really up to speed can still accomplish the task. These thoughts brought to you by RNT... the guys who brought you the 4 M.O.A. target concept! QFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 Sorry, not up on the acronym or abbreviation. What does QFT stand for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Quit f@&king typing? Quarks for Titan? Questions for talking? Quintessential Forestry Tent? Quite frosty tonight? I'll guess with you steely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishsticks Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Quoted for truth. A way to ensure someone doesn't later edit their post and claim they said/didn't say something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 So T Bacus, are you agreeing with Kurt's statement, or taking him to task? I am still not clear. It does not matter much, but I think his post was relevant and I agree in principle with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.E. Kelley Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Be all that Webster's historical stuff as it may. ARMALITE and COLT manufactured and sold the firearm, that we now know as the AR-15/M16 family of firearms, DESIGNATED AS A CARBINE. They made it, they did the marketing, they got the contract with the military, by pushing a firearm THEY BUILT AS A CARBINE!! Therefore, ergo, they are ALL CARBINES! Dare if I must, I can even give further proof that they are/were considered CARBINES....each and everyone!!! When the short barreled XM-177 came to being it was billed as the Colt XM-177.....SUBMACHINEGUN......NOT CARBINE. Historical note the XM-177 and XM-177E1 were re-designated as the CAR-15, that was just the model designation. the C didn't stand for carbine anymore than the A stands for "Assault" With all this in mind I don't feel that 3-gun in general is served by target farther away than 400 yards or so, with 300 yards probably a better number. That is the effective envelope of the ammunition in common use. Targets are generally visible in this range. They are in the +/- of error for a person that only has a 25-50 yard range to sight in on. They don't frustrate a middle of the pack shooter. They don't require pricey upper end bullets or ammunition. They don't require real spendy 1- 80 bazzilion X scopes. They don't require real high end barrels to eke the utmost in sub M.O.A. performance. The distance is still plenty long to test good marksmanship and field positions and the folks who can do that will still be winning, but the folks who aren't really up to speed can still accomplish the task. These thoughts brought to you by RNT... the guys who brought you the 4 M.O.A. target concept! Game set and match! Thanks amigo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Fishsticks, and T bacus, I am real sure I wouldn't change that post. It is the same stuff I have been saying for lo these last 5 years or so. I rather liked the Quarks For Titan....and you can QFT me on that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatland Shooter Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 With all this in mind I don't feel that 3-gun in general is served by target farther away than 400 yards or so, with 300 yards probably a better number. Who typed this? And what did you do with Kurt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Bacus Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Quoted for truth, as in I agree with the the text selected. In other forums I'm on (non gun forums) it when you QFT a post you're saying that the text you selected is so correct that you have nothing to add to it as it encompasses your views perfectly. It's meant as a good thing, and that I agree with what Kurt said. From the Urban Dictionary: QFT QUOTED FOR TRUTHUsed on internet forums when quoting someone with similar views as yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericm Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 ...then it should be QFA: quoted for agreement TRUTH THAT, HOME'S!..... (Urban Dictionary indeed......P'shaw) ericm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Thanks T Bacus! Flatland, you must not know me very well. I have felt that 3-gun was moving more towards "action designated marksman" matches for quite sometime. There has been a perceived "race" between match directors to have "the longest shot in 3-gun" and it has gotten quite ridicules, and on top of that they had to make extra large penalties if you didn't hit them, just so you would HAVE to try. 3-gun is supposed to be about the practical use of ALL 3 firearms, not the ridicules extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Sierpina Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Tim, Many of us geezers and those without young children, do not follow this type of lingo, nor care to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Bacus Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Tim, Many of us geezers and those without young children, do not follow this type of lingo, nor care to. Lets see, four grown children, three grandchildren. I think I qualify for your geezer club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hip geezer. I feel ya dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Sierpina Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 No kids, no grandchildren here, don't like "urban" language nor "text" speak. I may work in an urban environment, but, I don't have to live it in gun stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Dan, fighting the future always works out well in the end Although I'll shoot at any target you give me, I think 400yards or so is probably the outer limit that makes sense for 3gun. God help me, I'm agreeing with Kurt 400 is far enough that you don't just hold the center of the target and probably hit it as 250 and under likely does, so it adds an interesting skill test without becoming an exercise in frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Sierpina Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Vlad, I don't fight the future when it makes sense. I can operate a CNC, am on Facebook, my truck has a twin turbo 6 cylinder, and fuel injection is good. I also can cut threads on an engine lathe, have the knowledge to swage jacketed bullets, cast bullets and size and lube them. I do prefer in real words for the most part though. Used to be all the abbreviations were limited to government agencies, and not everyday communication. I guess I'm getting to be a curmudgeon. See you at a match in the spring, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Dan...this one is for you! I tell this to my kids all the time....WDTIA.....We Don't Talk In Acronyms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Bacus Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Hip geezer, what's that, a geezer that needs a new hip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Thanks T Bacus! Flatland, you must not know me very well. I have felt that 3-gun was moving more towards "action designated marksman" matches for quite sometime. There has been a perceived "race" between match directors to have "the longest shot in 3-gun" and it has gotten quite ridicules, and on top of that they had to make extra large penalties if you didn't hit them, just so you would HAVE to try. 3-gun is supposed to be about the practical use of ALL 3 firearms, not the ridicules extremes. 'Action Designated Marksman', I like that, the descriptive, not the actuality. once we pass 400 yards we are moving away from 'Action' shooting and getting into DM, Sniper and 'Area Denial' shooting. We already post targets that are not realistic targets. If we are shooting on natural terrain and not in pits with limited distances and obstacles a full size Metric Target is realistic, a 10" plate or smaller isn't. Now that said, I like the idea of 4MOA as a MINIMUM target size. It can be seen and hit by most, provided we don't deliberately hide it in the brush. We have recently had on e match that had a single 400+ yard shot and we were all told, if we don't see a dust puff on the berm, it is a match DQ so don't just take a shot to avoid a FTE. Well the FTE penalty was way less than the miss penalty so I don't think more than a very very small percentage of shooters risked the shot. This is WRONG. You should never NEVER be faced with a DQ for attempting a shot that is up set by the match. I am not talking about a ND, or some action on the shooters part, but simply missing the target at a long distance and not hitting a dirt pile. I suppose what I am saying is that IF a shooter has truly zeroed his rifle and has ANY idea of exterior ballistics, OK, let's state that simpler, has any idea of where his gun shoots at 100, 200 , 300 yards he should be OK at the match and not have to make shots deemed DQ-able for a miss. 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