Tactical Rant, sorta

[Patrick Sweeney]

OK, its time to see about some rules here.  Part of the reason I'm interested in the subject is that my own club is trying to sort out how to do this.  We've shot 3-gun for over 20 years, and want to keep doing it, and do it right.

A reasoned and productive discussion has to have some structure, or we'll all be reduced to squabbling like we're in some other place than the Enosverse.

1)  Don't say something is tactical because "it exists someplace else."  Example:  Hidden tubes in NRA High Power aren't relevant to us.  They exist so 600 yard shooters can use a sling.  External tube handguards can be, but are they?

2)  It isn't "Tactical" for our purposes just because a military unit has it.  Example:  The SEALS can use anything they want to, and probably have, and half of it is at the bottom of various bodies of water.  A military option is to get someone else with a belt-fed working on the problem, while you get on the radio.  We can't do that.  

If military use defined tactical, every competitor would have to have a two-pound plastic box bolted to their handguards, to simulate the laser targeting designator.

3)  The military model isn't feasible.  We're spending our money, not taxpayers money.  Competitors won't stick with us if we yank the rules around from match to match, or from year to year.  Once locked in, who wants to rebuild or buy new to shoot another match?  A perfect example is the Bianchi Cup Open class.  Unless you've already got a gun, why try it?  And once you've got a gun, where else are you going to use it?

4)  Don't cop out by saying "We do it this way here at our match, so what's the problem?"  If we all did that, there'd be a hundred definitions of tactical.  No much help.  Yes, a hundred (or two) show up at your match, but unless you can codify it so the rest of us can use it, your approach is useful for you and not us.

5)  The last probably should be first, but Jeff Cooper put it thus:  "What are we trying to do here?"  What is the purpose of Tactical?  To wear "cool guy gear" or use high tech toys?  To let older shooters put optics on a rifle?  To have more divisions, and thus the potential of more shooters?  I'm waiting for the "Post-Cowboy Pre-Modern He Man Division:"  Bolt action iron sight rifles in .30-06, 1911 as-issued pistols and 1897 shotguns with heatshields.  Competitors must wear itchy woolens even in the summer.

If the purpose is to have fun, knock yourselves out.  If it is to keep older shooters shooting, great.  If it is to look cool in cammies, fine.

[Flexmoney]

Patrick,

You bring up a very good point.  

I am a possible future 3-gunner.  But, as things stand now, I have no desire to try to figure out equipment and rules for each match that I may attend.

I shoot our local three gun match here in Ohio (every-other-month).  I shoot it just because I am there for the pistol match anyway.

[lynn jones]

hey patrick,

you need to e-mail mike voight and express your concerns to him.  he is on the rules committee for the rifle and shotgun rule books.

dvc ya,

lynn jones

(Edited by lynn jones at 11:08 am on Nov. 15, 2002)

[kurtm]

Patrick:

You rant so I rant. FIRST there is absolutly NO match (we are talking 3 gun here) that doesn't COMPLEATLY allow stock equipment. I.E. box stock M1A, box stock Glock, box stock Bennelli, for example. This is the gear I used for the last 5 years ( untill last year when I started getting some sponsorship.) There, done, just like that. There is a "tactical class".

The problem that people seem to run into is that N.C. tactical, W.C.3G., S.M.M.3G. all have similer rules, but since it is not THE EXACT way people think that "tactical" should be, they keep questing for the DEFINITION. I for one don't want to CODIFY any of this any more than it is. If we get a ONE agust governing body for 3 gun the number of matches will fall dramatically, and we will be reduced to squabling; just like what has happened to I.P.S.C.  In our area the pistol only sports under the nationaly recognized governing body has stagnated, and it certainly is not USER friendly to thew new shooter. I have talked to countless people that have shot ONE match and said they WONT be back. I don't want to see this for 3 gun.

N.C. Tactical seem to stress more of the phsical aspect of 3-gun. W.C.3G stresses the accuracy aspect of 3-gun, S.M.M.3G puts more stress on the fun/game aspect of the sport and U.S.P.S.A. seem to put more stress on the pure rule driven, more serious aspect of 3-gun. Pick one or more but don't grouse about what is tactical because as you pointed out if there are 100 shooters there WILL be 100 definitions.

You seem to disagree with the thought of DIFFERENT classes, although the idea of woolens might fall more to Kyles match as it is a PHISICAL aspect. Don't forget that optics were used, albeit not to a large degree, in the CIVIL WAR. You might want to crank that into your thinking on your pre modern /post western expantion class. I guess you should come up with a full set of rules, and then take the time to put on your own match, and see who showes up. That might be the final acid test of whether others like the base you have built. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR QUEST!!                 KURT

[jkmccoy]

I think I'm with Patrick here. I believe that 3-Gun needs a comprehensive and universally accepted set of rules to continue to grow.

In any sport there will be some degree of equipment race and rules need to be established to ensure that the competition remains fair and enjoyable. If we are all interested in shooting "Open" division then there will be no question. But because there is some interest in other styles of equipment (no optics, minimal comensators, etc.) there need to be other divisions.

So what do we really expect from a "tactical" division. Will it add shooters (compared to USPSA Limited)? Do we expect to create a division that allows only "useful tactical equipment"? That doesn't seem to be an enforceable criterion. What is tactically useful? I think I can carry a 10 pound rifle with two scopes farther and faster than "joe" can carry his 6 pound rifle with open sights and I can shoot a better score than he can.

Isn't this just a sport? Do we want to establish highly specific equipment criteria to ensure that all shooters are absolutely equal (everyone shoots an AR15 hightop with the original trigger no less than 3.5lb. trigger pull, open sights, etc) or do we want to allow freestyle variation in equipment to encourage the spirit of competition and sportsmanship?

I do not understand what is the big problem with current USPSA rules. The divisions are clearly defined. The rules are clearly defined. The rules seem logical to me.  Are the "tactical" rules just trying to satisfy some wannabe commandos?

Not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to learn something. If it makes any difference I shot my last 3-Gun match (USPSA rules in Open Division) with a Para .45 limited gun, a Win M12, and a heavily modified Mini14 (I did the modifications). I did well on the rifle stages, poorly on the aggregate. If you want to shoot Open division all three of your guns should be Open.

Cheers

[kurtm]

Mr.McCoy:

Great post!! I don't see anything wrong with U.S.P.S.A. rules governing 3-gun either!! for U.S.P.S.A.!!!!!!

The "tactical" rules are geared twards "wanabee" commandoes like Todd Salmon, Eddie Rhoads, Blane West, Eric and Kurt Miller, Daren Davenport, Taran Butler, and a significant cast of other "wanabees".  I.E. like the TOP TEN filler in most major 3-gun matches!! The problem here ( not for me ) seems to stem from the fact that "tactical" has taken on the meaning of single low powered optic of sufficient durability and size that it would be useful in "real world use". Trust me NO operator from QWEST to SEAL TEAM 6 would try to hump an AR with a 6.5-36X scope on top. It is NOT utile in the "real world". Some people don't like the restriction and say any optic should be allowed as it is only a matter of degree. Some say any optic should place the gun in open. (aren't seeing glasses an optic of sorts, so anyone wearing glasses that enhance sight should shoot open... maybe thats the answer Pat!). The great part of the "tactical" class is that at every match i've been to it has been broken out and scored by it'sself. I.E. winner in open, winner in limited(iron sight), and winer in tactical for rifle stages. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?????????? So for all of you agonizing over WHAT IS TACTICAL..... shoot stock iron class or open and don't worry about the OTHERE CLASS!!!!!

By the way, "tactical class" may provide a venue for you to shoot that COOL Mini 14 with optics, without the COST in both gear and practice of having to have TWO OTHER OPEN guns!!!! But then that would make you a "wanabee" also. I can hear the BUZZING already.         KURT

By the way the WANABEE is said in hummor, and I feel that you didn't start anything. DEFINE TACTICAL......the gun that saved my life in Bolivia,....but then not all of us can have a realy cool 14" 870!

[jkmccoy]

Kurt,

I don't think we have any real philosophical arguments. The only differences are in application.

Perhaps my "wannabe" designation seemed a bit denigrating - I didn't mean it as such. I shoot an open sight pistol (Limited Division) and a rifle with optical sights (Open Division) because that seems "right" to me.  Please consider that this comment comes from someone who spent many (MANY) hours shooting indoor small bore with peep sights. I'm perfectly comfortable with iron sights, I just prefer optics for a rifle (especially at realistic rifle ranges).

I did not mean to suggest that everyone who shoots "tactical" class is a "wannabe commando" although I see that my previous post may have suggested that. Many of the people that you mention are highly succesful in any division. Mr. Butler (for example) won the Texas State Limited Championship (just pistol) (I was keeping score).

My question (and it stems from a sincere desire to hear from other 3-gun shooters -  I'm heavily involved in planning/putting on a major 3-gun match) is what would we gain by including a "tactical" division? And/or what would we lose by insisting on USPSA rules?

If addition of a "tactical" division would add a substantial number of shooters then I am all for it. However, I see tremendous difficulties in the definition of that division.  Just like any equipment question we have to decide is another division useful? If it will add shooters I agree that it is useful. Is "tactical" a useful designation? I don't know.

I'll admit...I have no millitary training, I've never fired a shot in anger or in defense of myself. For me - this is a sport, a game. I want to compare my skills to other people who view this as a sport. An unambiguous set of rules allows comparison among shooters with minimal consideraton of the equipment used.

For me, the question seems to be "do we need a tactical division"? Would we include/add more shooters if we have a tactical division? If it isn't just a matter of including "wannabe's" then why do we need the division? Isn't all of the equipment described in any of the 3-gun rules also covered in the USPSA rules. You might wind up in Open division, but it is covered.

My "trick" Mini14 isn't legal under any set of tactical rules that I have seen (old Weaver K4 and an Optima on a custom made handguard).

So what? I know the rules. I chose to shoot in Open division.  Do we need another division to get shooters into the sport?

Cheers,

(Edited by jkmccoy at 12:56 pm on Nov. 16, 2002)

[Wakal]

I poke around a lot of different forums, and from what my little gray cells have managed to piece together the "tactical" crowd wants to play GI...or at least the "what would I bring to a wartime gunfight?" game.

Being Air Farce, my first choice would be a GAU-8A, but those darn things are kinda hard to carry...being 19' long and all (but 30mm REALLY makes major).

Kidding aside, it would seem that folks want to be able to run M4 carbines with Trijicon TANSN01s, the cute Leupold 1-3 variable, or the C-More setup...but without having to compete with the stainless fluted barrel dual scope JP comp titanium bolt crowd.

Tough.

The rules as printed seem to have been drafted with a bit of thought...if you are going to play optics, you are going to play with ALL the optics.  If not, then you are going to be shooting a fairly plain rifle.  Seems easy enough to me.  My favorite rifle is, alas, a LEO M4 with a TANSN01...which is what I would like to carry on duty (instead of the M16...not A1, not A2...the M16) they do give me (sigh)).  The shotgun...either the USAS-12 mentioned elsewhere or the SX2 Practical...is a far cry better than the M590 or the M500 they would give me (five shots?  Bleah.  Pump?  The horror...).  And the pistol...oh, boy...Hill's 6" Fat Free .40 over a M9?  Not even a question there.

Where am I going?  Not sure...it is late, and I'm not that bright at the best of times.  How about this...if you want to have a "tactical" class, then make it a TACTICAL class.  No playing around.  Flap holsters with M9's (ball ammo), M4 carbines with either iron sights or one of the issue optics, and issue shotguns like the M590, M500, or the 870.  MK23's in place of the M9's are optional, but only if the shooter is willing to jump in a glass of water now and then (SEALs get dehydrated easily, you know).

I know, the MEU are going back to .45's as God and Colonel Cooper intended...so perhaps single stack .45's (with ball ammo, working grip safeties, no guide rods) would be OK...out of flap holsters.

Cruel?

Discuss...

Alex

[kellyn]

Flexmoney, don't let this debate scare you off.  Bennie Cooley shoots nearly the same equipment for EVERY 3 gun match: 3 gun nationals to North Carolina Tac 3 Gun.  The only difference that I've seen is that he adds an optic for North Carolina and he's messing around with a 6 in pistol in USPSA matches.  Mag pouches are the same, shotgun is the same, hat is the same etc.  As Kurt noted, you can do very well in all the 3 gun matches with some basic gear.

[xsrdx]

and issue shotguns like the M590, M500, or the 870.

Don't forget the recently adopted joint service combat shotgun, AKA Benelli XM1014/M4- essentially a gas operated M1S90 with a rail. And what of the law enforcement community? Isn't their gear "tactical"?

If you don't like tactical class, don't shoot in it. USPSA has already rejected the idea because of the recognition that IPSC is a game, nothing more or less.  

A tactical class is an oblique admission that small arms can be employed as weapons, a fact that was obvious to the folks that started SOF 3 gun but one that USPSA isn't interested in discussing.

A tactical class provides people that care about such issues a place to compete with guns that are configured in ways that are useful in demanding "tactical" environments.

That means they are effective but durable - the tradeoff is typically that simple. What's the best gear you can get away with that won't break, fall off, run out of power, fog up, or otherwise fail when you need it most.

Basically, tactical is limited class with durable rifle optics allowed. That configuration reflects 99% of weapons employed by the current crop of LEA SRT and military special operations units, minus the night vision, combat ID, flashlights and lasers.  To many, that's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it any less realistic.

[kurtm]

XSRDX:

Craig is absolutly right. This is the best post on this subject yet!!! Your word smithing is exceptional as is your content!!  RIGHT ON!!!!!

As for the rest, as I have said U.S.P.S.A. rules are great for U.S.P.S.A. but NOT the rest of us!!!! Does ANY of you wonder why that of the 5 MAJOR 3 gun matches in the U.S., ONLY ONE uses U.S.P.S.A. rules??? ( that would be the U.S.P.S.A. Nationals). Maybe MOST 3-gunners enjoy these matches because THEY ARE NOT run by U.S.P.S.A.( at least the ones I know ) and their attendant rules. At the othere major matches, TACTICAL CLASS is at least HALF of the entrants in the limited divisions,sometimes even more!!! That in and of itsself says that TACTICAL is a very viable division, no matter what you U.S.P.S.A. guys want to believe. Sorry Pat, this is one of those " just because it is right else where" statements, but doesn't make it any less true!!! To those of you that don't agree with tactical class or think that it is full of WANABEES, DON"T SHOOT IN THIS CLASS, OR DON'T GO TO THESE TYPES OF MATCHES!!!!!! This is sooooo simple that even I thought of it.    KURT

[KyleL]

Quote from Patrick

"4)  Don't cop out by saying "We do it this way here at our match, so what's the problem?"  If we all did that, there'd be a hundred definitions of tactical.  No much help.  Yes, a hundred (or two) show up at your match, but unless you can codify it so the rest of us can use it, your approach is useful for you and not us. "

Quote from KurtM

"Maybe MOST 3-gunners enjoy these matches because THEY ARE NOT run by U.S.P.S.A.( at least the ones I know ) and their attendant rules. "

I guess the bottom line for my line of thinking is as follows.

1. At a tactical match I can use what I would carry or do carry or at least something very similar to.

2. I don't want to get fenced in to a certain group of folks making the rules for my match.

3. I don't want to be affiliated with USPSA or IDPA or NRA type match thinking.

4. I want the people that go to our match to continue to show up.

5. I want to continue to draw new shooters with what they have laying around not a special event weapon.

6. I want to continue to draw sponsors, changes to a USPSA type format may hurt this.

7. I will personally take the good and BAD that come from the outcome of my match. Blame will stay with our match only, not USPSA or any other organization.

Well that is all for now.. Hope we can keep hitting the horse, it gives me something to think about.

Also Patrick, I actually had to pull out a dictionary to see what CODIFY means, so not only are we having a great discussion I am also learning something. Just like Sesame Street... LOL

Until next time ADIOS KyleL

[George]

If you take 3Gunning as a whole, it looks to me like ya got Tactical, Open, & Limited  as the three major categories (Let’s face it, Limited is basically Open without optics & muzzle brakes). Most folks are geared up for at least one of those categories. A few are geared up for maybe two of the categories. A very few are geared up for all three formats.

The problem here as I see it, is that USPSA doesn’t recognize Tactical gear as a separate class from Open gear, and the SOF type matches (some, not all) don’t even allow USPSA Open & Limited gear in the door.

This puts the shooter in a pretty cr#ppy situation. Now he needs to deal with each type of 3 Gun Match that he attends as though it is an entirely different discipline. The shooter has to go through all of the hassle, expense, & time to acquire and maintain a huge amount of gack (read: stuff, junk, detritus, etc.).

I think it would not be unreasonable to suggest that all 3Gun matches should allow shooters to compete with what they’ve got. This would benefit both the new, and the experienced shooter.

I disagree with the (elitist) attitude that says that equipment has to meet "guidelines" other than safety and  minimum caliber requirements. At least USPSA allows shooters to compete with unorthodox gear even if there isn’t a class for it (they just stick you in Open).

I don’t really care much about performance in a real world tactical situation. I just care about whether it works for me on the range. But, that doesn’t mean I can’t shoot alongside someone else that does care about such things. There is no reason that all criteria cannot be tested in the same venue.

I would like to see USPSA recognize Tactical as a valid class for 3Gun (hopefully without doing what they did to Limited), and I would like to be able to compete at SOF style matches with full on USPSA Open or Limited gear. I don’t need a prize, or a belt buckle. I just want to shoot, and see how well I can use what I have. This to me, is the way the world should work (kinda like having your cake, and eating it too!).

I am sure that I have really stepped in it now, and will get flamed to a crisp for saying what I have said. But what the heck, all I am interested in is going to as many good matches as possible, and getting in as much shooting time as possible. Everything else means squat to me.

I am not advocating USPSA over IMA or SOF, or any such thing. It may be selfish, but I just want the sport to continue to exist and prosper because I like doing it.

Regards,

(Edited by George at 8:25 pm on Nov. 17, 2002)

[kellyn]

I wannabe like KyleL - only better looking.

Clearly, tactical class has a place in 3 gun.  It's probably the most popular "class" or format. Most people like to shoot their iron sighted pistols and since so few can shoot an iron-sighted rifle, they want to shoot a scoped rifle.   Some people are wannabe commandos -  just look at 1/2 the people shooting at the old SOF.  AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!  SOF had no problem filling up to 250 shooters while the 3 Gun nationals was on its last legs until recently.  

I don't care for the idea of having a whole bunch of classes though, you never really have an overall champion.  That is one of the best parts about North Carolina and WC3Gun.  You have an overall winner!

Should we kill off limited and establish USPSA Tactical class? or have both?  Or do it SOF-style with seperate scoring for scoped rifle and iron-sighted rifle and then fold the scores back into one another for an overall champion?    I think a tactical class would increase participation in USPSA 3 gun. I guess that's more important than having an overall winner.  

[kurtm]

HOLA: ( thats hi in spanish)

Just two more quick things and then I QUIT on this thread.

GEORGE, Soldier of Fortune is gone as a major match sponser. There is no S.O.F. match any longer it was replaced by World Championship 3-Gun.

I kind of like the quick fix you propose " allow shooters to compeat with what they've got". I can see this as very benificial to the guy that has the 16 rnd shotgun, way cool race pistol with optic and rifle that cost more than a Ferrari payment. He could probable do okay shooting against the iron sight guys with the pump shotguns......or did you mean to have actual classes?

Oops... 3 things, This last Saturday, 11-16-02 at the Rocky Mountain 3 gun assoc. match, the top three OVER ALL were using W.C.3G. gear, 1st used an M1A, second an MAK 90,and 3rd used an M1A, pistols were single stack 45, glock 9mm and a strayer 40. Shotguns were, stock m1super90 Benelli, Rem 1100 with 7 shot tube and another Benelli, also stock. The courses were round intensive and one rifle stage was VERY close range, the othere was from 125-90 yd and both were high round count. Fourth place guy was using full on open gear right down to the race holster for the way cool race pistol( this is really a cool pistol) and full on AR with dual optic. Fourth place guy is pretty well known in the U.S.P.S.A. circles so I guess this is a fair statement when I say STOCK GEAR IS ALWAYS WELCOME AT ANY 3 GUN MATCH!!!!!! And it can win.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE TACTICAL CLASS, DON'T SHOOT IT!

                                KURT

                                             

[George]

Hi Kurt,

I was using the SOF term to cover matches run with WC3Gun type rules. I do know that SOF is history, I just think it makes a better acronym than WC3Gun.

I actually think Tactical is a great idea whose time has come. I think Kelly has something there with his thought on replacing Limited with Tactical in USPSA (Limited was the USPSA way of dealing with a practical division in the first place without using the dreaded T word). Maybe it's time to call a rose a rose.

I would shoot Tactical class at some matches if I had a shotgun that was set up that way (just haven't gotten around to it yet). In fact, I was gonna go to WC3gun with my box stock AR-15, a SIG P-226 and a 20" 1187, I just didn't get around to putting any effort into getting the shotgun done (Ok yeah, I actually spent my money on other stuff and my wife didn't understand why I wanted to spend more).

I enjoy shooting my box stock stuff, I just don't choose to shoot it at most matches (I have this thing about racing formula one class, as opposed to production class, it's my problem, I can deal with it).

You really only need two classes, Tactical (USPSA would still call it Limited, give you the scope option on the rifle and make some small adjustments to the present Limited rules) and Open. Tactical/Limited gets the scopes scored separately on rifles. Open would have no boundaries (it’s really the R&D class where new developments are tested for suitability in Tactical).

The IMA (I think that’s right) rules seem to do a very good job of this (I believe they are the type of rules used at MM3Gun). Maybe USPSA needs to cop to this, and make a few changes at their end. A good set of rules like this, if universally applied would give us a pretty nice (I didn’t say level) playing field. USPSA has way too many divisions, It needs to simplify.

I would love to see a real good shooter chew up the Ferrari’s (even mine) with a Winchester pump, a gubmint model, and an M-14. It shows that skill is still where it’s at. I think it's fantastic that the results show the Tactical gear meeting, and beating the Open gear. It just “shows to go ya” about how important the rifle is compared to the other firearms. It also shows that the top competitors are flocking to Tactical class ;~)

I agree that the horse is almost dead, I just had to get my kicks in too.

I remember when we used to have a class at our pistol matches that was called tactical and required a stock type gun. Then it slowly became uncool to say tactical (at least in California). The next thing you know USPSA has us all using the word Limited when we really mean useable in a tactical situation. Then Limited got gamed into Open lite.  It used to be tactical to just plain shoot a stock gun with basic leather, and the rules were few, and easy to understand. What the hell happened here anyway? (Rhetorical question)

Regards,

(Edited by George at 1:04 am on Nov. 18, 2002)

[Flexmoney]

Kurt,

this is just for you.  

As someone looking into the sport, I don't know tactical division from Open.  From my perspective it appears that each match has different rules.  I don't care a whole bunch what rules are used...but, it sure would be nice if the big 5 matches (or whatever they are) got together and came up with something.  I know I won't be buying equipment and/or changing up for each match.

When you say, "...if you don't like xxxx, then don't shoot it.) ...well, you have convinced me for now.  I won't be shooting it.  Whatever it may be.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Man, go away for a weekend, and you've got a lot of postings to catch up with.

1)  I'm not against Tactical as an equipment Division, a Class, or anything else.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of a Club President and Match Director:  How do I define it so I can keep the troops happy?

2)  Looking at the top shooters gear doesn't help the rest of us.  Issue those guys identical stock rifles, shotguns and handguns (as in IROC) and they'd still kick butt.  They also have all the gear they need or want.

What do we do to attract and keep new shooters?

3)  I currently have the following down in the vault:  7 AR's set up from box stock to SWAT tactical (I teach) to USPSA Open, 2 FAL's, 1 match M1A, 2 Garands (USAMU match built) 3 or 4 AK's, M1Carbine, Mini14, 4 different "sniper" type rifles, 2 over the course bolt guns and I can't remember the rest.  I have a shelf of nothing but scopes, mounts and assorted rifle gear.  I can shoot in any class I want, and I still want to know how you define Tactical.  Keeping a set of rules on hand (and downloading the updates) for each of the other 3-gun matches is not as much fun as getting out and practicing.

4)  What I'd have in (Bolivia/Bosnia/Iraq, pick the pestilential third-world hellhole of your choice) would depend on more things that what wins matchs or is relevant as the second man on a an entry team.  Again, we must use the military model with great care or we'll have to explain why a "Tactical" selection of rifle does not also include artilelry prep or grenades in the room first.  There are things essential to the military that are precluded to us in a competition environment.

And using the military model as our sole guide does logically lead us to M4's dripping with accessories, M9's in flapped holsters and Mossberg 590s.

5) Saying that something stock out of the box is Tactical ignores the wiliness of gunsmiths.  DPMS can make you a "stock out of the box" racegun that will be a killer Open gun.  Does the mere fact that it is offered by a manufacturer in that trim make it "stock" or "tactical?"

Again, I'm not saying I don't like Tactical, I just want you to clearly define it other than "What we do" so I can explain it to our shooters, new and old.  And, if we can define it, adopt it.  The melding of the 3-gun matches, with Open, Tactical and Limited would let any competitor shoot any match with the gear he feels best with.

As for scoring it, that is simply software.

P.S.  And if we do meld the rules, and a match wants to keep their character, great.  Then just tell us. "We're trying to stress Tactical, so there will be long range shots, crawling through brush, etc."  Or, "We're interested in hosing, so the shots will be open and fast."  I can then decide if I want to being my 13 pound Open AR to a brush-crawlng match or not.

(Edited by Patrick Sweeney at 8:45 am on Nov. 18, 2002)

[George]

I just went and reviewed the results from the MGM IronMan 3Gun in June, and they pretty much mirror the results Kurt mentioned from the recent Rocky Mountain 3Gun. Places 1-5 were all shooting WC3Gun type gear (WC3Gun, WC3Gun, WC3Gun, if I say it three times, real fast, maybe it'll stick). 1st Open was 6th overall. I was 6th Open at 17th overall.

Yeah, given  the results from matches, I would definitely agree that Tactical type gear is more than just competitive (I think the "optic on the rifle" option is probably the real big factor here).

As far as where we are going with all of this in the long run, I figure "where the big dogs go, the rest follow". And no matter what the big dogs compete with, they will usually occupy the top slots anyway. My only concern here mirrors Flexmoney's, what does it take to get us all on the same page so that we can get new blood into "this thing we have here"?

It would seem to me that the last thing we need are more specialty "niche type" matches that require very specific equipment (did I hear someone say Bianchi) dissipating the momentum that 3Gunning has been gaining over the last couple of years. It's a competitive sport after all, not a clique, and new competitors are the lifeblood of any sport.

Regards,

[Mistral404]

I am new to USPSA.  I started out with a BHP in 9mm, then went to a single stack .45.  

I like the idea of 3gun matches. I went an observed a couple and asked a bunch of questions.  

I purchased a Bushmaster with removable handle and a Benelli.

So here I am, a 50 year guy who enjoys shooting.  I can use iron sights out to 200 yards but boy is it tough.  So I scoped my rifle.  I shoot iron sights on both my pistol and shotgun.

Of the twenty or so people I know that shoot 3gun have a similar set-up.  I was told that if I wanted to shoot any 'big' matches I would have to go back to iron sights on my AR or buy an ACOG.  If need be I can probably spend another $800 for an ACOG.

But then there are the mag pouches for the AR and pistol rules.  UGH!!!!

The bottom line is that I just want to shoot and be somewhat competitive.  The equipment wars, ACOG, different sets of AR mag pouches, different set of pistol mag pouches,.....  UGH!!!!  It is almost a question of who has the biggest budget in order to play!!!

My suggestion is make it simple: Open for the hardcore equipment dudes and tactical for the rest of us.  Scopes on the ARs [ is nice for the over 40 bunch] and iron sights for pistols and shotguns.  No mag pouch rules-"run with what you brung" to quote the Tues Night Steel motto.

Don't Micro Manage It.  Make it fun and more people will show up.

[ErikW]

And there you have it... people just want to play the game with scopes on their rifles, even if their pistols and shotguns are iron-sighted. Make accomodations for them and you will be worshipped as a god.

In some locales, they call this Limited with Rifle Optic. In some locales, they call this Tactical. In other locales, Tactical is a loaded word which means the rifle optic must meet some arbitrary criteria, and maybe the other equipment must meet some other criteria.

The T-word, like the L-word and others, has worn out its usefulness. It now means too many different things to too many different people in too many different places, such that it cannot be used to communicate among the different people. If it ever had a universally understood meaning, it no longer does. Let them continue to use the T-word provincially. Don't try to assign it a universal meaning. Do us all favor and don't create yet another provincial definition of Tactical, just call it something else.

Confidential to wakal: "No depleted uranium on steel."

[Patrick Sweeney]

The crux and divide:  Those who want optics on a rifle because they need it to see, and those who want to be in a match with "cool guy gear" (and perhaps need the optics, too.)  We can do that.

I propose equipment divisions along the following lines:

Open.  Knock yourselves out.  Anything you can bolt to a gun, that doesn't damage the props, steel or RO's hearing.

Limited.  Iron sights.  No comps except for the current rule, recognizing factory-installed comps.  (The moment the AW Ban sunsets, the rule goes back to "no comps".)  No speedloaders on shotguns.  Shotgun capacity max at nine rounds.  Handguns; iron sights, no comps, shooters choice of Limited L10 or Production, but not split in Limited 3-Gun scoring Overall.

Mixed/Tactical.  Rifles, comps only as per Limited rule.  One optic of the shooters choice.  No back up red dots, backup irons allowed.  Shotgun and handgun as per the Limited rules.

Alternative Mixed/Tactical rules:  Any One of the 3 guns used may meet Open specs, the other two must be Limited.  Just in case some Open handgun shooter wants to use box-stock rifle and shotgun.

No list of "approved" optics that are considered durable or suitable for military use.  If someone wants to shoot with a $39 Walmart scope against your $800 Acog, let him.  If someone wants to spend two grand on a US Optics, fine.

In all categories, the shooter is responsible for keeping their gear on and under control.  If someone wants to use a race holster, they have to make sure the gun stays in.  Sling selection, scope selection, mag pouch selection, all the shooters choice and subject to match rigors.

If the match organizers want to recognize someone who shoots "afgan correct" gear, let them recognize the performance of that shooter.  Clearly state what is allowed for those wishing to try for the trophy, and call out their names at the awards.

The match would be open to all three.  As a scoring matter, we could post a match overall, combining the categories.  And post the three categories, and the subcategories.

Would WC3Gun have fewer or greater attendance under this plan?  Would other matches?

[xsrdx]

Mixed/Tactical.  Rifles, comps only as per Limited rule.  One optic of the shooters choice.  No back up red dots, backup irons allowed.  Shotgun and handgun as per the Limited rules.

This class could be called "Rifle Modified" or similar to avoid use of the dreaded "T" word.

Agree that "tactical" is overused and ill defined, thus open to interpretation.

Websters sez Tactical,adj  1. Of or pertaining to tactics, esp. military tactics 2. characterized by skillful tactics or by adroit maneuvering, technique or procedure. .

No mention of comps, optics or bipods though, so no help there...

Given that IPSC/USPSA has 5 or 6 pistol classes (Open, Standard, Limited, Production, L10, Modified, blah blah blah) it wouldn't seem that tough to add another "Rifle Modified" Division for 3 gun.

But that's just me.

[Mistral404]

Patrick had made a concise, succinct statement for the direction 3gun matches.

I think they are reasonable and easily implemented.

[George]

Hey there, now we're talkin'

Patrick's desire to codify, and unify (only a set of rules, not a governing body) is right up the alley I am thinking of.

I don't want the "cool guy" thing, or the "win with better gear against inferior gear" thing. I only care about what I do against same or superior gear. I don't think anyone is uninformed enough to think that winning with a rocket motor against a gas engine is winning. Thats what divisions & classes are for.

I just don't have enough gear for all of the configurations needed. If a shooter could compete using some combination of what he already has, then we are getting somewhere. I don't care if I am stuck in Open/Unlimited with a stock pistol and rifle because of my shotgun, or some other combination, I just want to shoot. I think we need a methodology so shooters can compete without spending more than the match costs (all travel cost's and work losses included) in new gear just to go. I think that I am not alone in that. It's the killer hump for new shooters. If I have to get new gear, I also want to make sure that it's for more than one match a year (read Bianchi here).

Without a consistent set of guidlines all we are as a sport (3Gun) is a loose conglomeration of "specialty" matches

BTW, I was away from competitive shooting from 1992 to 2000. Consequently, all of my gear was woefully outdated, and I have been competing with fairly sub-standard Open equipment as I slowly & painfully upgrade all of my gear.

To that end I find myself in exactly the same situation as new 3Gun shooters facing the equipment hurdle, and every acquisition, or upgrade I make has to be carefully weighed for it's value/utility, or it won't happen. Living in California is also making it a bit difficult to get up to speed on the hi-capacity open pistol highway. The extra expense of new firearms/pouches/holster/etc. to flesh out my stock gun/gear inventory (or convert any of my existing stuff) to Tactical, or WC3Gun specifications is an expense that will have to wait even longer. It's kinda funny that I'm stuck in Open until I spend more money!

Regards,

(Edited by George at 2:16 pm on Nov. 19, 2002)