Rocky Mtn 3 Gun Proposals

[kellyn]

At the Rocky Mtn 3 Gun, Blaine West brought up several issues that he wanted discussed so I thought we could debate them here. If I forgot any, please feel free to add any.

1) Tactical Iron

Should RM3G, drop Tac Iron given the minimal participation? I'm personally ambivalent about this one. It would make scoring in the Tactical Division easier and I like the idea of having everyone competing in the same equipment class BUT I just hate to see iron sighted rifles die from 3 gun.

I don't think it's an advantage to shoot Tac Iron given the level of competition within that division. It's a smaller field but it's just as tough as the scoped field. It is also a division in which weather and lighting conditions can have a great effect - much more so than the scoped tactical division.

So I guess I would slightly favor dropping Tac Iron.

2) Open

I heard rumours of dropping Open. I believe this is based on the idea that having an Open division hampers stage design, especially pistol stages. I am generally not in favor of dropping Open since it is the laboratory. BUT having an Open division has prevented the RM3G from becoming a true tactical match like the North American Tactical or old SOF. Open holsters DO hamper stage design and DO prevent rules such as carrying your pistol at all times like the old SOF.

I'm not in favor of dropping Open but I think stage design should not be effected by it. Bring on the mud, crawling, climbing etc. (like at KyleL's match). If every Open shooter ends up being DQ'd so be it. The whole point of Open is to create equipment which can solve the problem so let's give Open shooters some new problems to solve.

3) Pistols On at All times

I am in favor of this. It is "practical." If your rifle/shotgun goes down you can stay in the fight - even if it means lobbing pistol rounds 300 yards at an 8 in steel plate.

4) He Man Scopes

While we're thinking about dropping Tac Iron out of Tactical, we're talking about adding scopes to He Man. Hmmmm. I'm generally against this one from a philosophical point of view. Scopes don't sound very He Man to me. But since the iron sights on the FAL suck compared to those of the AR10 and M1A, this one favors me personally. If you guys want to let me put an ACOG on the old FAL, I won't try and stop you. He He He He.

5) He Man Light

Should He Man have power factors? Some feel that He Man should have power factors to prevent people (like me!) from shooting 110 grainers in their rifles or light loads in their .45s (not like me!). I'm actually for this one AS LONG AS IT'S ENFORCED by the CHRONO. But I hate to tell those who don't like 110 grainers that they can be shot at major power factor (2909 fps to make a 320 pf or 3090 fps to make a 340 pf). In fact, my 110 load does make a 320 pf.

So bring on the power factors as long as you bring on the chrono. What should they be? How about 320 for the rifle and 180 for the pistol.

[BigDave]

Although I haven't shot any of these matches yet - but I'll chime in.

Open - I say keep it. And I say keep pistols on at all times. The only thing I believe stage designers should be designing stages around is the firearm and the ammunition used - not holsters and other such equipment.

Having said that, I am not in favor of an approved holster list - period. Outline the challenges and let the competitor make the decision. Hey, if someone wants to go crawling throgh 12" of muck with their blaster in a Limcat holster, who am I to say that's no-good? I wouldn't do it, but it doesn't mean I'm right either.

I think they should keep Tac Iron, too. Yeah, participation is minimal, but at least they have a place. Eliminate it and where do these guys go? Open? Hell, maybe through them into He-Man light?

[PacMan]

1) Tactical Iron - I believe we're talking about raw scoring of optic and iron sight together for match result & consequently, prize table, but would recognize the top iron sight competitor with a plaque of some sort.

2) Open - Yes, there have been discussions of dropping this class. However, I agree with Kelly about "let them figure out how to solve the new problems" as long as they don't whine about it.

3) Pistol as a backup - Cool! At least it would give the shooter a chance to eliminate the Target Not Engaged penalties.

4) Scope on He-Man rifles - Yes! Save us the trouble of trying to keep the target back board clean

5) He-Man Light - I believe we would institute a minimum bullet weight rather than power factor. A scale would be used at the stage, of course

[SinistralRifleman]

Requiring people to wear their pistols for the duration would self limit Open class, as I doubt people would want to use race gun holsters exposing their pistols to the elements and increasing the possibility of dropping them. If anyone drops a gun due to poor holster design, it should be a match DQ.

Open class should be done in the form of trooper class, which by it's nature also self-regulates. We had discussed using a flat bed trailer to give Trooper shooters transportation within a certain proximity of each stage to accomodate for the increased distances between stages at RM3G and allow everything to run on schedule.

[Zak Smith]

1. Eliminate Tac Iron. People can run iron sights if they want to. Modern assault/battle rifles use optics nowadays. Virtually every rifle you see in US service on CNN has some sort of optic. A rifle's capabilities are substantially increased with an optic, and they have proven durable in the field. Outside of budgetary limitations, there is no reason to not have an optic on a rifle for serious use. Irons as primary are obsolete, and a Tac Iron class would be a competition relic of a past era.

2. Agree with Kelly. Design stages with no regard to Open. Tell them to bring a real holster.

With regard to the Open class itself... I think there is a debate to be had about what is "Tactical" or "Practical" and what is not. That soldiers overseas are using dual-optic setups (on ACOG or LaRue SPR mounts) and optics on shotguns (ask SinistralRifleman for the picture) is de facto evidence that these have tactical, not just game, use.

Likewise with bipods on Tactical rifles. I am against it because they are generally a pain in the butt to have on the rifle and they get in the way except when you're shooting with the bipod. But maybe if the competitor carries it on the rifle or his person for the whole match... ?

3. Agree with Kelly.

4. For scoped He-Man for the same arguments from #1. If we are using modern weapons, it is incongruous to leave the sighting technology ancient. If you want a 1911/M1A class, then set up a "WWII" side-class, sort-of like the USPSA Single-Stack division.

[PacMan]

...Likewise with bipods on Tactical rifles.   I am against it because they are generally a pain in the butt to have on the rifle and they get in the way except when you're shooting with the bipod.  But maybe if the competitor carries it on the rifle or his person for the whole match... ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zak, I believe bipod would be allowed on or off depending on stage, similar to sling. I don't like bipod either, but if it is allowed to be taken off when not necessary, then I'd put mine back on and not depending so much on mono podding technique for the long range shots.

[scottmilk9]

Even though I did poorly with my iron sights, I dont beleive it should be eliminated, as I agree with Zak, alot of battle rifles have some sort of optic, Using Iron sights is all about marksmanship. If i could do the match over, i would shoot tactical scope. I also think that allowing all classes a bipod would be helpful due to the terrain.

[bgary]

At the Rocky Mtn 3 Gun, Blaine West brought up several issues that he wanted discussed so I thought we could debate them here.

Kelly -

As this conversation goes along, and before any rule changes get "baked" for next year's match, can we put our heads together?

As you know, USPSA put a lot of work into crafting a set of "multi-gun" rules that were very similar to the rules in place at the big IMGA-style matches (RM3G, SMM3G, DPMS Tri-Gun, Iron-Man, etc). The general idea is that we're all sort of shooting the same game, and the more consistency we can have between our rulesets, the more we all have a chance of growing this multi-gun thing. I think that benefits us all.

So, I'd love to keep my eye on any potential rules changes, and help keep them from becoming "differences", if possible. Let me know what I can do?

Thanks,

Bruce

[Zak Smith]

Being "helpful" is not a good selection criteria for Tactical. For example: it would be "helpful" to have a spotter and ammo-carrier, to use multiple optics, a comp'd pistol and shotgun, to shoot different rifles on different stages, etc.

[kellyn]

5) He-Man Light - I believe we would institute a minimum bullet weight rather than power factor. A scale would be used at the stage, of course

That makes no sense. A 110 at 3000 fps not legal and a 220 at 1000 fps legal? What's the logic there? It's got to be a power factor. Besides what is so untactical/unhemanly about 110 or 125 grain bullets (which is what I shot at Raton when I shot the first Rocky Mtn 3 Gun - 125 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip)? What would the floor be? 111 gr? 126 gr? 145 gr? 151 gr? 169 gr? 176 gr? At what point do we tip over into HeManlyness?

[Zak Smith]

395 PF rifle, 190 pistol?

In for a penny...

[bgary]

For sake of discussion, I'll throw in my thoughts on each of these things.... which may have some small influence on the evoultion of USPSA's multi-gun rules. Not trying to hi-jack the thread, just trying to add another perspective.

1) Tactical Iron

In USPSA, there are three divisions: Open, Tactical, and Limited. Open allows optics and comps, Limited prohibits optics and comps, except for a 1"x3" comp allowed on rifle. "Tactical" is a Limited-legal handgun, a Limited-legal shotgun, and a Limited-legal rifle with one optic allowed.

So.... one could consider "Limited" to be "Tactical Iron", for all intents and purposes.

One other thing I'd note is that according to the USPSA rules, a division will only be recognized in a match if a minimum number of shooters sign up in it. So... if you get less than a handful, the division is not used in the match.

2) Open

I think Open is a viable "lab", as someone else has noted. But, I [personally] believe that stages should *not* be designed with any division's particular equipment in mind. Design the stages the way you want them... if it causes problems for Open shooters (and, I am one), we'll figure it out. That's part of the game.

3) Pistols On at All times

Two questions come to mind. One is, "what would this measure?" Generally speaking, I think a shooting competition is about the shooting, not about what you do (or carry) behind the line. For "trooper" class, sure, where the class rule is around making the shooter carry everything they need, no problem. But for other divisions, I guess I have a hard time seeing how that would sort out who is the best shooter.

Two, is it really a competitive issue? My belief is that there are two forms of "penalties" appropriate in our game. If you do something unsafe, you go home (DQ). If you violate an instruction or procedure during the course of fire, and it affects the competitive equity of the stage, you get a "procedural penalty". What penalty would I get if I *didn't* have my handgun on my belt, behind the line, *not* during a course of fire? My opinion is that your score should be about what you do between the beep and the last shot, not about what you wear and when you wear it.

I can't see USPSA adopting this one... and would hate to create a difference between us for [what seems like] "style points".

4) He Man Scopes

*Love* this idea. As a matter of fact, the way USPSA has proposed adopting "he-man", it is as a "category", not a division. So... within the Open division, we could crown an "Open He-Man" winner (big-bore guns, with all the Open doo-dads). Within the Tactical division, we could crown a "Tactical He-Man" (big-bore guns, but ones which are legal within the Tactical division). Etc. So, we already have the potential for He-Man "Open", He-Man "Tactical", and He-Man "Iron" (Limited)

My opinion is that part of this game is about trade-offs - not only on the stage, but in what you bring to the game. If you want to cart an LR308 with a scope and a dot and BUIS and a big-ass comp to the line... I think you should have a place to play.

5) He Man Light

In USPSA, we *do* recognize power factors, and we do require that He-Man firearms "make major".

This seems pretty fundamental to me. If the origin of the He Man class was to recognize the performance of shooters who choose to shoot big, manly, full-power firearms... it seems to make sense that we require them to shoot big, manly, full-power ammo. If not... what's the point of He-Man?

My $.02

Bruce

[smokshwn]

On #1

I'm in agreement to let combine Tactical Class. However let there be the option to either run a scope or not. Thereby the guys who want to run irons are still free to run irons.

#2

Leave Open alone. Why is there so much concern for the Open shooters. They/we decide to shoot whatever division when we sign up. If I drop a gun it is MY FAULT. For god's sake we were running with loaded weapons through the mud, rain, rocks, bushes and trees all the while transitioning between and shooting targets. Is the Open holster really the major player in course design that affected stages? If a competitor cannot shoot a stage safely then they can't shoot a stage safely...regardless of what equipment they are using the onus should be on them to adjust/adapt to make it so. Put me in the camp with those above who want to leave it up to the shooter to bring equipment that is compatible with the match.

#3

Yes, I think all pistols all the time allowing for transitions due to malf's, gun empty, etc.

#4

Yes allow optical sights. What is the point to shooting a more powerful far reaching cartridge if we make it more difficult to visualize and discern targets? Not to mention if I ever shoot HE MAN I don't think I am smart enough to figure out some of the target sights I saw, give me a scope

#5

Yes on PF's. You can't be a HE-MAN if you are shooting bunny farts. Get the chrono out and make it so.

Take care, Craig

[cking]

I've got a problem with pistol on all the time. Some guy with a 2lb trigger and pinned grip safety is rolling around in dirt with holster that exposes the safety on the 45, so ambi safety gets pushed to off. Lets also say that holster is a new plastic fantastic that leave the muzzle exposed. Gun gets pushed out of holster or muzzle filled with mud. It ain't going to happen often but it aint' keeping with the belt and suspenders approach to safety.

Not without going back to holster rules.

[Zak Smith]

That can happen NOW on any stage involving a pistol.

[P.E. Kelley]

#1. The only reason I shot iron sights is the scoring advantage I got with the “scored separately and then combined”

scoring method. This allows the iron sighted competitor to pick up better stage placements then they may have in the scoped class depending on the caliber of competitor in iron class. With the smaller participation in iron class I vote that we shoot and score heads up and recognize via trophies the “top iron” competitor/s. This will allow for more flexibility in course design and less match director concern for the sighting handicap that irons offer.

#2 Open is the test bed for much the cool stuff we now take for granted. Like many of you have penned let Open figure out what gear works and leave Open and Iron out the course design process. Remember I am and iron sight shooter.

#3 While I like the idea and ability to do so, I would require a proviso that the pistola would be chamber empty until employed.

Safety is job #1 we must think of the R.O’s

#4 He Man/ Heavy Metal…….hmmmm. OK, I say scopes. Optics are no longer black magic. From a 1970’s perspective yes here in 2005 no. This is provided HM remains a separate division otherwise see #1.

#5 Pull samples of all competitors ammunition and for times sake chrono the Top 5 or 10 Dogs in all divisions after a days shooting. With proper planning this could be workable and a fair price to pay for a trip to the prize table. 340 for rifle, 185 for pistol and 520 for shotgun. Same goes for all other divisions with the exception being following USPSA’s 165 or whatever it is for major mouse pistol ammo.

Thats my take

PK

[PacMan]

#5 Pull samples of all competitors ammunition and for times sake chrono the Top 5 or 10 Dogs in all divisions after a days shooting. 

PK

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like the idea, but I believe there are potential problems with the execution, similar to the 'pee in the cup' test. I can see grounds for protest & whining, unless the samples pulled are sealed, signed, and safeguarded prior to testing, which will be a logistical nightmare. If we make it too hard to administer, then I would vote to leave it alone, I personally wouldn't care if He-Man shoots .308 'bunny farts'.

[SinistralRifleman]

The problem I have with power factor is if someone is shooting the exact same cartridge out of a shorter barrelled gun, it can prevent them from making power factor.

If people use weak ammo, or their shorter barrels reduce muzzle velocity, they will most likely have other problems for whatever advantage it gives them, i.e. trouble putting down steel, wind deflection, etc. If someone wants to use a P90 5.7x28mm as their rifle for the match, I don't care. Varying and unique course designs will go a long way to negate the advantages of various equipment, calibers, or loadings.

[P.E. Kelley]

Pac Man, All I can tell you is that it seemed to work for the SOF match. Your ammo was collected and placed in a zip lock with your name on it and used if and when needed. It would have to be a seriously defective match staff and director to cheat a competitor, I would have no worries. Then again I shoot easily dentifiable full power millitay ball ammo in my 308 and 230 Blazer in the 45. If instituted this proceedure would be applied to all divisions.

PK

[EricW]

So, now we're going to have "He Man" and....................."Girly Man?"

[Wakal]

He-Man, Girly-Man, and...Carrot-Top!

BGary +1

And for the record:

1) Tactical Iron - Sounds like "Limited" to me. Lets try "Open, Tactical, and Limited"

2) Open - Keep it. But stress the "crawling around" part. I have a Open pistol that fits in a 6004 rig. I have a Kydex Bladetech DOH for my...Bedell Open "Shorty" STI. I usually run a Limcat, but I'm flexible (which explains how I got my head there...)

3) Pistol as a backup - Oh yes. My favorite part of the CavArms matches

4) Scope on He-Man rifles - Bring it on! Just like...the Army and Marines have figured out, scopes/red dots on M14 rule

5) He-Man Light - No, lets do some power factor stuff here. Call it, oh I don't know, "Major" and "Minor"

Alex

[Paule]

1- Keep Tac-Iron. It's the most economical entry point for new shooters. Cost is going to continue to be a factor for younger folks coming in so I would hate to see them discouraged. Don't score separately then combine though, keep separate from Tac-Scope.

2- Keep Open. Don't discourage innovation.

3- I believe the proposal is to wear a pistol during all stages. I don't like the idea of a prone rifle shooter breaking the 180 with a holstered pistol. We have enough "don't stand here" areas already. soon there would have to be bunkers behind the line for everyone else. Make stages where you can use pistol or rifle (or slugs even) on the same targets, and let the shooter decide which one, is a lot of fun but don't make an arbitrary "wear one at all times" rule.

4- USMC is going to put ACOGs on ALL of there rifles over the next few years. That's he-man enough for me. I think a good number of Tac-Scope shooters would switch to He-Man-Scope if it was offered. Maybe allow semiauto shotguns in the scope rifle category and limit the He-Man-Iron group to pump shotguns.

5- Skip the He-Man light via bullet weight. Power factor is okay though to keep everyone honest. Need to do it for Tac and Open too, not just He-Man. This Major/Minor idea may just catch on!

[Religious Shooter]

- Eliminate Open Class (opposition to this has been strong from moment we mentioned it). NO

- Eliminate Tactical-Iron Sub-Class (we only had 22 this year). YES (In light of #3)

- Add Tactical/Iron Category (like lady's, military, senior, etc.) NO

- Allow any single optic in He-Man Class (the single most requested change request that we get from shooters). NO

- Add He-Man/Iron Category NO

- Allow bi-bods on Tactical and He-Man rifles NO

- Require power factor or bullet weight minimums for He-Man (140 grain rifle and 200 (or 230) grain pistol) YES with Power Factors. NO on bullet weight. 200 PF for pistol and 420 with rifle.

- Require handgun to be worn on all stages NO... YES if He-Man only.

- Require slings on rifles YES

- Eliminate shotgun barrel and magazine tube length restrictions (but retain 9 round max at start) YES (I would prefer 9 rounds max at ALL times).

I'd like to also recommend...

Limit Tactical rifles to 30 rounds

"Fire in the hole" <== my conservative slogan after throwing the grenade

Edited August 30, 2005 by Religious Shooter

[Phil B.]

1) Keep Tactical Iron, I left the tactical divison for HM to get out of the equipment race.

2) Keep Open, that's where the equipment race should be.

3) No to Pistol On at all times, Yes to Pistol On if you want. Also the stage description should state what targets are OK to engage with a pistol if the intended gun for the stage is unusable.

4) No! He Man is where tactical iron shooters go and it shoud be pump shotgun only.

5) No He Man light, go to open if you can't handle the recoil.

FYI, great match.

[MattBurkett]

Wow, what a way to encourage a thread to bloat!

Open - keep it. This is where all the cutting edge stuff gets worked out or toasted. I would rather just see what we used to have which was all guns compete alike. I could see it as Open (do whatever you like as long as your pistol doesn't fall out of your holster) and He-Man. At least the equipment is completely different between the two unlike tac irons, tac scope and open.

Tac irons/Tac scope - lets be realistic here. What is the average age of our competitors? Between 40-50. An 8" plate at 300 yards with irons is unrealistic for someone with any sort of vision issue. Heck, it sucks with a scope after shooting two other guns and running up hill! Nearly all NATO militaries are going to scopes on their standard infantry rifles so the "tacticalness" is kind of proven now. Multiple scopes? Why not? That is standard issue also. As for the 30 round limit concept - why? Beta mags and 40 rounders (not to mention AK drums) have been around and used in conflicts for years. Bi-pods? I don't think that should be allowed when there is an open division. If you allow them, what is the difference between open and tac scope rifle? Just the extra dot sight on the side is all.

I don't have a problem with pistols being on during a stage. I would only suggest that the holster cover the muzzle if this is enforced. Another idea: If the match directors wanted they could give the shooters the option of whether or not they wanted to carry them during every stage.

I guess the ideas that have to be nailed down are:

Are we playing a game or trying to be tactical or somewhere in between?

If we are trying to be tactical, what level of the playing field do we stop the progression of equipment? I know of two military groups that are using tec-loaders on their shotguns. And yet people consider those game equipment.

In the real world, the line between "game" and "tactical" equipment has become blurred if it exists at all. Scopes are going on all three guns, some units are using comps on all three guns and nearly everything else that would put someone in Open class is being used on a daily basis in Iraq or one of the Stans.

Sidenotes: I don't shoot limited or tac scope for only one reason. Speed loaders for the shotgun make too much sense. It is the only gun we reload like we are back in the 1800's shooting a cowboy match.

Also, why do we allow comps on the rifle but not the shotgun or pistol? A comp on a shotgun makes a lot more sense than on a .223 rifle.

When we are considering changes, we should take into account a big question. Will the change actually grow the sport or just move people around in divisions?