Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
teddym90

#1 Favorite and Pet Peeve about UML Rule Set

Recommended Posts

We have a lot of UML rule using 3-gun clubs in WI and I was thinking about this the other day.  I'm interested to hear what others would say if they could share what one thing makes UML rule set their favorite and/or what one thing they wish would change or that they find to be their pet peeve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the UML rule set is pretty much right on. I think the divisions need some tweaking. Limited needs to be either eliminated or more differentiated from Tac Ops, i.e. 8 round max shotgun tube size, 30 round rifle mag capacity, 20 round pistol mags etc. 

 

I also think it should go back to there only being 2x4 Open division, no 2x4 tac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Blockader said:

20 round pistol mags etc. 

 

egads, please don't make me count # rounds in my pistol mags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I've covered most of my thoughts in other threads, so in this one I'll just add that I wish UML allowed Prairie Storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TonytheTiger said:

I'm sure I've covered most of my thoughts in other threads, so in this one I'll just add that I wish UML allowed Prairie Storm.

 

LOL, that's one of my favorites about UML, no Prairie Storm.  My pet peeve is no Cowboy Division, 6 pistols, a lever action, and a pump shotgun.  Yee Haa!

 

 

Nolan

Edited by Nolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nolan said:

 

LOL, that's one of my favorites about UML, no Prairie Storm. 

I actually don't care that much from a shooting standpoint. Its the range lawyers that have come out of the woodwork. Ever since I first got a PS penalty I've noticed the same guys just waiting to catch someone using it so they can assess penalties. These same guys have started going through all the fine print in the rule book looking for ways to bend people over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:

I actually don't care that much from a shooting standpoint. Its the range lawyers that have come out of the woodwork. Ever since I first got a PS penalty I've noticed the same guys just waiting to catch someone using it so they can assess penalties. These same guys have started going through all the fine print in the rule book looking for ways to bend people over.

Is it just me or has the range lawyering reached an all time high in 3-Gun? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, teddym90 said:

Is it just me or has the range lawyering reached an all time high in 3-Gun? 

No comment. I'll derail the thread if I do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My #1 favorite.....any match that doesn't run UML. My #1 pet peev, any match that does! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kurtm said:

My #1 favorite.....any match that doesn't run UML. My #1 pet peev, any match that does! 

Wow that's super helpful! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, and just a post or two above you were complaining about all the range lawyering in UML. Any rule set that has the R.O. counting rounds, inspecting equipment, getting 5 guys yammering away about this or that little detail is distracted from his real job of trying to maintain safety, and keep the match flowing. This leads to an atmosphere of contention  instead of competition, and therefore isn't fun to me. You asked for opinions and those are mine, helpful or not. I'm sorry your stuck in an area that has only UML to offer, but once again that is just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kurtm said:

Any rule set that has the R.O. counting rounds, inspecting equipment

i haven't shot uml but have gone thru the rules.  where is counting rounds or inspecting equipment diff than other shooting games? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kurtm said:

Hmmm, and just a post or two above you were complaining about all the range lawyering in UML. 

I didn't reference uml in my comment. 

 

The rest of your statement applies to any matc. Whether it's ensuring people are in the right division or someone wants to debate the approach to a stage... 

 

Not here to argue with people as everyone has right to an opinion and I am curious to hear different ideas but it's hard to follow you. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, teddym90 said:

I didn't reference uml in my comment. 

 

The rest of your statement applies to any matc. Whether it's ensuring people are in the right division or someone wants to debate the approach to a stage... 

 

Not here to argue with people as everyone has right to an opinion and I am curious to hear different ideas but it's hard to follow you. 

 

 

Does magazine fit gauge? Yes!   No need to count, concentrate on safety. No it doesn't.....open!  no need to count concentrate on safety. Does 4x scope indicate limited...no....open....R.O. can centrate on safety......does x equipment fit in 4x2, 4x4, 15x80 division....don't know, need to stop a look it up, not thinking safety. Five guys saying snap on mag pouch put him in 3x2....or what ever....distraction for R.O. , and to be fair, NO, you never said UML, I just took it that way. I guess it is because the matches I attend (non UML) don't seem to have that problem while the two I did (UML), I wanted to take several range lawyers gunny sack swimming. UML is non existent in my area, and I'm happy! As for making a course of fire that requires an R.O. to count round to insure compliance.....that is a very lazy stage designer, but that is a very different topic. Sorry to interject guys....carry on!😀

Edited by kurtm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect what Pete is trying to do, but his rules make me cringe. The text reads like a semi-coherent rambling stream of consciousness, written as if he were explaining it to someone in a casual conversation. Experienced 3-gunners can read between the lines and get the gist of what he is saying, but the range lawyering decried above is a symptom of the immaturity in the UML rules document. The norms of the sport, as spelled out in USPSA rules, are assumed to apply without being explicitly identified - as a result, each RM gets to decide which of those norms he likes and which he prefers to ignore. This kind of rules "flexibility" is often cited by USPSA shooters as something that turns them off from outlaw matches.

 

I much prefer the clean, structured, well-considered, "written-by-committee" style of text epitomized by USPSA and IPSC rules. When I wrote IMA-SMM3G rules, I put great effort into knitting them together with USPSA rules as much as I could. Where differences were necessary, they were clearly identified so as to minimize the opportunity for range lawyers to get an unfair advantage.

 

As regards the flavor of UML as a sport, I'm not a huge fan of the division rules, but I acknowledge that is totally a matter of opinion. The targets also bother me - I've never been one of those folks who think our sport would be all over network TV if it were not for those un-PC humanoid targets, so targets like the UML and 3GN designs seem like an answer to a question nobody is asking.

 

Despite my personal peeves, it is clear from the level of adoption that a lot of folks DO like what UML is offering. I wish Pete and his crew well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, StealthyBlagga said:

I respect what Pete is trying to do, but his rules make me cringe. The text reads like a semi-coherent rambling stream of consciousness, written as if he were explaining it to someone in a casual conversation. Experienced 3-gunners can read between the lines and get the gist of what he is saying, but the range lawyering decried above is a symptom of the immaturity in the UML rules document. The norms of the sport, as spelled out in USPSA rules, are assumed to apply without being explicitly identified - as a result, each RM gets to decide which of those norms he likes and which he prefers to ignore. This kind of rules "flexibility" is often cited by USPSA shooters as something that turns them off from outlaw matches.

 

I much prefer the clean, structured, well-considered, "written-by-committee" style of text epitomized by USPSA and IPSC rules. When I wrote IMA-SMM3G rules, I put great effort into knitting them together with USPSA rules as much as I could. Where differences were necessary, they were clearly identified so as to minimize the opportunity for range lawyers to get an unfair advantage.

 

As regards the flavor of UML as a sport, I'm not a huge fan of the division rules, but I acknowledge that is totally a matter of opinion. The targets also bother me - I've never been one of those folks who think our sport would be all over network TV if it were not for those un-PC humanoid targets, so targets like the UML and 3GN designs seem like an answer to a question nobody is asking.

 

Despite my personal peeves, it is clear from the level of adoption that a lot of folks DO like what UML is offering. I wish Pete and his crew well.

Well said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with the range lawyer. I'm all for simple rules, but there are areas that are ambiguous that don't need to be, like the birdshot type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you that do use UML rules are you using the expedition or traditional ruleset?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2020 at 7:07 PM, farinx said:

For those of you that do use UML rules are you using the expedition or traditional ruleset?

Everywhere I've been has been Expedition except the Traditional Nationals in TX.  I like go-fast type matches so the Expedition scoring appeals more to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, teddym90 said:

Everywhere I've been has been Expedition except the Traditional Nationals in TX.  I like go-fast type matches so the Expedition scoring appeals more to me.

what do you think about the super high penalties for misses on long range targets? Even matches with lots of long range (rocky mountain, vortex shooters source) don't have as steep of penalties for long range misses.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Rocky Mountain had failure to do right type penalties for not making a valid attempt at shooting targets. UML did away with those and increased the penalties for failing to hit.

 

There are assumptions made in the rules just like most outlaw matches that boast of a short ruleset. There is also a strong desire to bring clubs into the fold so that has an affect on the rules. USPSA doesn't worry about bringing in outlaw clubs to join them. They focus on new clubs that want to run USPSA for what it already is. 

 

Other than divisions I really don't see how UML is that much different than most outlaw matches. Maybe it's cause I shoot open so that is mostly the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have always had higher penalties for missing distance targets ( 200+),  no point in having distance if there is no added penalty.
But then again , I think a rifle should be utilized as such in a match,  if it's paper at 10 yards and steel at 100, that's a PCC match

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pet peeve about it is that it exists. Why couldn't we just keep using 3gn rules. I'm so tired of these constant rule changes and having it become a part time job keeping up with them. I just wanna shoot. It is, as said above, making a while new group of guys at the range that nitpick every thing everyone does and it's mentally exhausting. Meanwhile they pretty much cheat all day. 

 

To get more a little more into it... To many divisions, to many different targets for different divisions, to much stuff for the RO to worry about and keep track of. Do you not realize that the RO wants to shoot the match to and not be mentally exhausted? If you really want to ban shotguns go shoot uspsa, you can shoot your little rifles there now. 

 

The good news is in a couple more years another new organization, and I use that term loosely, will come along with their new set of rules. This cycle will continue until eventually it will come back around to 3gn rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, louu said:

My pet peeve about it is that it exists. Why couldn't we just keep using 3gn rules. I'm so tired of these constant rule changes and having it become a part time job keeping up with them. I just wanna shoot. It is, as said above, making a while new group of guys at the range that nitpick every thing everyone does and it's mentally exhausting. Meanwhile they pretty much cheat all day. 

 

To get more a little more into it... To many divisions, to many different targets for different divisions, to much stuff for the RO to worry about and keep track of. Do you not realize that the RO wants to shoot the match to and not be mentally exhausted? If you really want to ban shotguns go shoot uspsa, you can shoot your little rifles there now. 

 

The good news is in a couple more years another new organization, and I use that term loosely, will come along with their new set of rules. This cycle will continue until eventually it will come back around to 3gn rules. 

Can you highlight best parts of 3GN rule set? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 12:15 AM, teddym90 said:

Can you highlight best parts of 3GN rule set? 

Check them out, it's a really short read. They are pretty basic and you can do whatever you want, the targets are simple, the scoring is simple, the divisions are simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...