3-gun Tactical Class

[Mickster]

I hear quite a bit of buzz about this for 3-gun. Using USPSA rules as a guide, even though there is no Tactical class in USPSA, I understand Tactical 3-gun to be:

a limited rifle with an optic,

a limited or production pistol in an IDPA type holster, and

a limited shotgun.

Is that it or am I missing something?

BTW, the He-Man class I read on another thread sounds great. Sounds like there's going to be a lot of fun 3-gun stuff going on for 2003.

[kurtm]

Mickster:

You are correct about tactical class. The single optic is very limited in what you can use. I.E. A.C.O.G.s, CQ/Ts, Elcans, and a few others. Also NO bipods At S.M.M.3G. And there is usally a wieght restriction of some kind.

The HE MAN class was a joint effort By Eddie Rhoads, Eric Miller, Blane West, and Jimmy Holdsworth. Hope it grows like crazy.                          KURT

[Les Snyder]

Kurt...any particular reason or politics that match organizers specify only military issue type scopes allowed?  We're a little out of the main loop down here... and have to try and piece together the thoughts of you guys with more experience....  For the sport to grow, seems like you would not want to exclude a sponsor like Bill Wilson and the rest of the IDPA shooters.... I would like to allow shooter discretion as to optics choice, to find out what works, like Kyle's rules for the North Carolina Tactical Match...regards Les

[kellyn]

There is no definitive set of rules for Tactical 3 gun class, each 3 gun organization tends to have their own little twists and turns to the rules. USPSA does not recognize a tactical class but SOF/WC3Gun/SMM3G/NCTac3G all either have a tactical class or are solely "tactical."   Mickster, you are roughly correct in your interpretation but beware different matches have different requirements.  Some have mag pouch requirements, some have weight requirements, some have scope requirements etc.  Be sure to carefully check the rules before you go off to a major match!

I think Kyle's rules and those used by Pima Pistol Club are probably the best, except they don't not recognize major/minor.  

We've discussed this before in the forums but I'll bring it up again.  I ABSOLUTELY HATE making people pick from a list of so-called approved scopes. Dumb rule.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Kelly,

Here's an idea for tactical optics, one I borrowed from SCA when I used to whack (and get whacked by) other people with padded swords:

Build a spring-loaded ball peen hammer.  Allow the shooter to use any optic they want, provided it survives a whack with the hammer.  In SCA, any new weapon or new design was approved only when the intended user was willing to take 3 hits with it.  The tournament organizer got to pick who would do the hitting.

No hitting the glass directly, and no targeting the objective rim, but otherwise, if there is any doubt about your gear, put it under the hammer.

We'd find out real quick what optics were tough, and what ones weren't.

[KyleL]

Patrick Great idea with one exception. Don't hit the poor defensles optic. Hit the shooter in the forehead. And if he wants to put on two optics he gets 10 hits. This would sort out the people who really are serious about shooting. You know Kelly and Kurt would probably get in line for several whacks...... LOL  KyleL

[kurtm]

LES:

I'm not quite sure how limiting scopes excludes Bill Wilson from sponsoring or even shooting if he wished nor do I think it excludes I.D.P.A. shooters from shooting a 3-gun match. As far as I ever knew Bill Wilson does not make any type of optic, nor does I.D.P.A. as an entity produce optical sights. When I did some checking it sure seemed that an Iron sight setup was leagle in I.D.P.A. as well as U.S.P.S.A. as well as S.M.M.3-G. and W.C.3-gun. WOW that includes just about every body!!!!

The reason a tactical class came about was because S.O.F. ( Soldier of Fortune magazine) put on a 3 gun match starting in1976 and it specified the rifle must be a MILITARY rifle or nearest civilian equivalent. NO OPTICS!!! Then some darn up shoot company named Steyr went and produced an abomination ( personal feeling, and does not nesecarily express the view point of others) called an AUG. it had a built in optic. Well S.O.F. decided to alow this set up and in the interest of making things "fair" they also at this time alowed any "military type scope " in this same power range i.e. 1x-4x, such as the ELCAN, A.C.O.G., Colt scope, and a few others. They also decided to score scope and iron sights seperatly. This idea sort of stuck and now we have some form of "tactical class" in alot of 3 gun matches. THE INTENT was some thing that was "battle worthy" not an AR with a 6x-36x huge optic slaped on top. To further limit this from getting out of hand they also came up with a weight restriction for each class, iron, optic, major, minor, tring to keep the spirit of the competition PRACTICAL, and something that would be used in the real world. ( I don't know about you but a 18 lb. AR 15 would get to be a REAL drag carrying in the field for a week along with the rest of your T.O. gear).

There you have it. If you open it up to any optic you start to have an equipment race. I.E. now I need a big power scope and also a dot of some kind for close in. Tactical class is widely divers in the amount the scopes cost. a little Colt  type scope can be found for around $75 a U.S. optics SN-4 can be the price of a house payment. The same can be said for any optics welcome. Rest assured however that IRON SIGHTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME, and usally score seperate from the optic classes.                                                KURT

[kurtm]

KYLE:

Sorry I didnt' get to read your post befor I finished mine. Of course I would line up for a "few wacks" right after my breakfast of concertina wire and razor blades. In the spirit of your post I guess the iron sight boys would get a lighter hit, the tactical guys a little heavier and the open guysa real smote! Of course any one with an M-4 weighing any where over 14 lb. because of all the phazer, tazer, lazer geegaws, and handles would shoot the match with a mild swelling of the brain!  KURT

[kellyn]

For the two optic setup, I might take a couple of whacks.

Given what optics cost, I'd rather take the hit than have any of my optics smashed!

I have a question for Kyle and Kurt.  Is the idea of two optics that "untactical"?  Given the stuff that I've seen put on real-live/working/duty ARs/M16s: grenade launchers, shotguns, lights, lasers, pistol foregrips, etc, does the weight and bulk of a little red dot optic  (optima size) really suddenly make a rifle not duty ready?

[Patrick Sweeney]

Here, here, Kelly.  Does anyone remember the photo on the cover of Newsweek, Oct 29, 01?  The SF trooper has on his M4 an M-203, a red-dot optic, a laser identifier and a flashlight.  So, a Leupold 1.75-6 and an Optima is untactical how?  

[kurtm]

Hey Kelly and Pat:

First of all I didn't say that two optics weren't "tactical", nor did I say they were!! Lets take a good long look at what has driven the spec ops community for the last 15 years. That would be the grand old counter terrorist doctrin as applied to Europe, and South American cities and a few other "fine" places around the world. In reguards to this doctrin it is almost always assumed that this type of work is CQC ( close quarter combat), I.E. house clearing in the urban environment.

With this in mind, the weapons requierments were taylored, for the last 10 years or so, twards this type of warfare. Short barrles, lights, 203,s ( far better than any shotgun by the way if you can get one), lazer designaters for interface with night vision, etc. All the great photo genic stuff seen on the front page of News Week!!! Well let me tell you that this stuff is great if you don't have to hump it very far or you operate in the desert or cities. Once you leve the paved or flat sandy environs ALL THIS STUFF  becomes a brush catching bit**!!! and starts to make the weapon really uncomfortable to carry due to being poked and prodded with all the great TECHNO gadgets. Most the guys doing drug interdiction in the jungles of S.A. and Indonesia, seem to carry pretty much iron sight M4s with a very small IR lazer to interface with night vision, or shotguns. These are very sleek weapons for a reason. Remember that even the old 3 prong flash hider on the original AR hooked brush like a bit**.

For my final jab espesially at Kelly ( you know I can't resist.) The reason they put those 12 ga shotguns under an AR is because somewhere along the line those operators know they need to actually stop someone "right now" not 10 min from now as the .223 does. ( actually it is usally used for door breaching and once again helps make my point). Whats TAC in one place isn't usally Tac else where and my final word is M14.                                                             KURT

[Patrick Sweeney]

So, how do we define what is "Tactical" in the context of 3-gun competition?

Equipment restrictions?  Definitions?  Vague hand-waving?  We need a definition/description, and a method to determine what is and what isn't.

The ironic thing about our problem is that we are taking as our example people who have learned from us.  The SF trooper on Newsweek?  The only thing on his M4 that wasn't competition or market-derived was the M-203.  Barrel twist, optics, light, laser, flat-top upper, all came from either competition or competition-driven LE use.

We should be leading, not following.  So, where do we lead to?

[KyleL]

Well boys this is a can of worms I really don't wish to mess with, however I did a test with the optima in such a configuration and it lasted exactly one day. (the truth is it lasted only a few minutes. Please add jump operations, climbing over cement walls, and rain to your setup and let me know how you fare. Leupold is great, ACOG fine, US Optics Gay, Holosight fast . Optima broken or distorted at the OBJ. You also need to look at the skill level of the average soldier. How many shoot matches or even shoot once a month.

ANPEQ2 is not an identifier it is an IR aiming device with flood light. Now if you boys want to have some night shoots that is the tool of choice.

When you gents develop a Holosight type scope with the capability to crank up the power, let us know.. You might actually sell 1 or 25,000..

God Bless the United States of America

KyleL

[xsrdx]

Leupold is great, ACOG fine, US Optics Gay, Holosight fast . Optima broken or distorted at the OBJ.

LOL Kyle, well said.

As for what consitutes "Tactickle" - IIRC the original SOF intent regarding optics, as Kurt pointed out, was "adopted for military use" - somewhere, anywhere. If it's in rotation with a recognized professional military force, it's legal.

Kyle points out that truly tactical operators have to balance utility with durability, otherwise they are stuck with dead weight, or worse, casualties or a failed mission.

The "tactical" class is designed to recognize and reward selection of what is necessarily a slightly compromised setup.

USPSA rules don't allow a "tactical operator" to compete with issue gear and be competitive - nobody on the HRT or in the SF DET is going to carry a wide body red dot 38Super, or a 5ft SGN, to work.

So the "cutting edge" becomes what works best for the GAME, which is fine, but we can't pretend that standard necessarily applies to combat weaponcraft.  

A drop test or hammer whack would certainly separate the wheat from the chaff, but the "adopted for military use" criteria remains a valid one.

[kellyn]

Alrightly then,  question answered!  I guess I won't bring a two optic rifle to NC tactical.  Kyle will hit me with a ball peen hammer and then jump out of an airplane and land on a brick wall using my red dot as a cushion, or worse make me jump out of an airplane.  I'll stick to the Leupold.

As for how to divine tactical rules, I don't know.  Patrick makes a good point about leading or following the military community.  I think we need define what Tactical class is actually for and then go from there.  Is it "limited" in a different guise or is it supposed to accurately reflect current military/LE equipment in the match context?  

[xsrdx]

current military/LE equipment in the match context?  

IMO that's the most appropriate definition of a tactical class.

The catch becomes defining "current military/LE equipment", thus the nefarious "approved configurations" list.

[kellyn]

"USPSA rules do  not allow a tactical operator to compete with issue gear and be competitive."  

Sure in open but I don't think that's fair in the context of limited class.  Duty gear can be competitive in limited.  And to be honest, I don't think it's equipment rules that prevent a lot of LE and military types from competing.  I think it's ego.

There are positives and negatives to following military/LE equipment by rote.  Patrick (and I believe Kyle in another thread) correctly notes that competitors are the ones who push and pull equipment and technique along NOT military and police organizations which get trapped by bureaucracy and stasis.  By setting the rules a bit beyond the bubble of current military/LE equipment  we spur development which in turn aids the military and LE. On the other hand,  I can appreciate the simplicity of straight up-basic rules.  Of course in the end, Voight and Cooley are going to win anyway!

[KyleL]

Only in America can we agree to disagree.

As a match director of a Tactical 3 Gun, I have decided to establish rules(for my match only) that hopefully will make sense to the masses that will attend this type of match. Only one optic of choice, iron sights with optic ok. But one thing I try not to forget is that this is just a shooting match, although when some fellas are regailing SP? their experiences at my match it is like listening to a History channel special on LRP's in Vietnam. Anyway, if we can get a few soldiers, sailors, and Police Officers to attend great. If the equipment issue scares them off oh well, more than likely their lack of ability is truely the problem. (sucks to suck in front of real shooters)

"USPSA rules do  not allow a tactical operator to compete with issue gear and be                                   competitive."

THIS ISN'T EVEN AN ISSUE....

If I get my mates to come and they like the SPORT, yes SPORT, then they can get a few gadgets to make them feel more competitive. I love to compete, I love to be innovative, and I love the job I have. Competing in USPSA competition will help me perform better at my day job, but I would rather be shooting PUSBT  Pop Up Shoot Back Targets

than US Poppers and Paper..

If you are into gadgets, keep trying new stuff, and when you come up with something good, us poor military fellas might just adopt it... LOL

Oh lastly, just a couple things US Military has given to the competition world.

M-1

M-14

AR-15

1911

Not a very long list but boy it would be hard to shoot three gun without em...

Kelly, do you want to jump static line or HALO... LOL

And no concrete for you, just a vat of boiling oil... LOL

KyleL

[Wakal]

What depresses me is that I compete with far better gear than what I am issued.  My favorite rifle is a LEO M4 Bushmaster with a three-side gas block and a Trijicon NSN1 scope.  Earlier this year (and last year, come to think of it), when I was in Kuwait, "they" let me have an M16A1.

Oh, joy.

Wouldn't let me zero it, nope nope nope.  Wouldn't even allow me to function fire it.  Right out of the armory into my little paws.  What a confidence builder.

Alex

[FayettevilleFatKid]

Hey Kyle, is my memory faulty, or weren't Mr. Garand, Mr. Stoner, and Mr. Browning all civilians?  If so, didn't "we" give the M1, AR-15, and 1911 to the military?  Can't remember on Garand for sure, so if I'm wrong, you can choke me out...again.

[kurtm]

WOW did this thing get big or what??

Hey fatkat...er kid, great point! I do believe that all these guys were civilians so there!!!

Pat believe me that I didn't "drive" any of the gear that that "BLANKETHEAD"* on the cover of News Week had. I would however have liked to drive the M203 project, but that idea was already done.

* ment only in the best way.

I guess MY definition of TACTICAL would be to MARRY that smoke pole for a full week. Take it every where you go, and try to get in a few really good hikes. Sleep with it, fondle it but only shoot a few rounds if that. If at the end of the week you are happy with every thing about the rifle, and the rifle itself then it is probably "tactical"; and I don't mean just put in the car when you go somewhere. Im sure that pretty soon we all would agree on a list of stuff that would fit the word TACTICAL. BUT remember it's just a game we play, very few of us have to H.A.L.O. into boiling oil.

P.S.Remember Cops are gadget guy extrodinair, so don,t go by what they hang on thier rifles eather.     KURT

[actionshooter]

Kelly-- LMAO!! All I know is I can't let KyleL near my open gun! I'll have to have two rifles,If Kyle is around its limited for me.

This whole "its tactical,its not tactical" is a bunch of crap. I don't think most people who shoot these matches really know what tactical is supposed to be (myself included). Only the guys who have been trained to use the skills or have really been there can say what works and what dosen't. For the rest of us its a sport or game. All I have to do is follow the rules,if it says 1 scope or no scope at all,thats what I do to play the game.

Steve

[kellyn]

HALO.  Don't they open automatically at 3500 feet?  

Kyle, I don't think that we are disagreeing.  You are obviously in much better position to judge what is useful in the real world and what is not.  Your rules do seem to make the most sense to me, except the major/minor thing  (couldn't resist one more jab).

I've been thinking and I will back off my prior statement about military stasis somewhat.  M16/AR15 development was originally pushed by the Army's decision to go with ARs as their match rifles.  Likewise we owe the military gunsmithies a great deal in the development of the M14 as a match rifle.  But I do think that most modern practical shooting technique - not tactics - was developed by civilians, including our host.

[xsrdx]

Civilian engineers have always been the critical element in small arms development - military planners know what they want, but depend on civilian expertise to get it done.

Civilians developed the B2, M1 Abrams and nuclear weapons too, but it's tough to argue those items are anything but military in nature.

M1, AR15/M16, M1911, M14 - all were developed, by civilians, in response to or in anticipation of a military requirement.

They have been product-improved by competition, but unless demand is high, innovations often get shelved. The relationship between competition and military/LE requirements has been a two-way street, one could argue competition begets improvement, but most developers/manufacturers are looking at improvement equating to increase military/LE sales - so who is really driving the train?

Follow the money - small arms development has been driven almost entirely by military requirements and funding, certainly since Alexander hoisted his first Pike.

[KyleL]

Kelly, Still working on major minor issue. I have a couple ideas but since we add time for points dropped I just have to be heads up as to who is shooting major/minor. I really just want to avoid the whole chrono thing. And if we score major minor the chrono will definately have to be used.

Actionshooter said it best.

 For the rest of us its a sport or game. All I have to do is follow the rules,if it says 1 scope or no scope at all,thats what I do to play the game.

I am pretty sure every big time IPSC shooter(My brother Kelly) has the gear needed laying around to shoot the NC Tactical.

This past year we had some real guys with real guns and we pointed out a shortcoming in their gear with the course design. Since then they have changed a few things to make target engagements a little better in a real world situations. I am happy about that.

Some of us train for the next big match while others are training to allow us to have that next big match.

KyleL