Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Sign in to follow this  
Maxamundo

Help design the ultimate practical 2-gun sport

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, StealthyBlagga said:

Without reading your document (which is hard going on a phone), here are my initial thoughts as an experienced action long gun rules writer and MD:

 

1) Do not incorporate the Major vs Minor scoring disparity. The concept is outdated, and it greatly complicates the use of hit factor scoring in Multigun. Someone should be able to shoot a stock 9mm Glock 17 and 16” 5.56 AR15 and not be at an automatic disadvantage vs. some crazy competition-specific calibers.
2) Stick to Comstock only scoring like IPSC does. Virginia Count is stupid in handgun - do not contaminate your concept with it.

3) Definitely get away from the USPSA “shoot as seen” dogma. For something you want to be viable at the club level, the current rules as written are too restrictive on the stage designer, requiring too many expensive props and too much setup work. 
4) Do not attempt to align with existing USPSA handgun or Multigun equipment rules. They are a complete basket case, the product of decades of compromise and “must not obsolete a gun” thinking, and are thus irreparably broken. Start with a clean sheet of paper based on the most common kinds of guns out there. Definitely do not create an Open Division that requires huge $$$ to buy a competitive rig.
 

I’d actually make the case for only ONE equipment division, with stage design rules that negate the benefit of magnified optics, bipods etc. (e.g. minimum available target size vs distance for both handgun and rifle). Make the shooter run their gear unchanged throughout the match and they will figure out what works.

 

The outlaw Multigun world is already well versed in running 2-Gun matches. Look at what is most successful there and use that as a basis for your new sport.

 

Could you expand on item 3?

 

Are you saying no more “freestyle”?  Cause if this hypothetical game is “shoot T1-T4 from left side of shooting area, T5-T8 from right side of shooting area” I think we’re going in a really bad direction.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, HCH said:

 

Could you expand on item 3?

 

Are you saying no more “freestyle”?  Cause if this hypothetical game is “shoot T1-T4 from left side of shooting area, T5-T8 from right side of shooting area” I think we’re going in a really bad direction.  

 

 

 

Yes and no. The problem with USPSA Multigun rules as written is that they are overly dogmatic about what freestyle means. Here are couple of stages I designed for outlaw multigun:

 

Stage 1 - Engage rT1-6 with rifle from Area A, then re-engage rT1-6 with rifle from Area B, then engage rT7-10 with rifle from Area C, then dump rifle in barrel. Next, engage pT1-8 with pistol from Area C. This stage would be illegal under USPSA frestyle rules.

 

Wm2hCSB.png

 

 

Here's another example:

 

Stage 2 - Engage rT1-6 with rifle through Port A and/or Port C, and engage pT1-6 with pistol through Port B.

 

cBt4FkP.png

 

Building the stage as shown above would be illegal under USPSA rules. Instead, the poor MD would have to build the monstrosity shown below - exact same shooting challenge, but a lot more work and expense. Why? Because "freestyle, as and when visible". Stupid, and one of the main reasons multigun matches run under USPSA rules are as rare as hens teeth.

 

BWXygJf.png

Edited by StealthyBlagga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StealthyBlagga said:

 

Yes and no. The problem with USPSA Multigun rules as written is that they are overly dogmatic about what freestyle means. Here are couple of stages I designed for outlaw multigun:

 

Stage 1 - Engage rT1-6 with rifle from Area A, then re-engage rT1-6 with rifle from Area B, then engage rT7-10 with rifle from Area C, then dump rifle in barrel. Next, engage pT1-8 with pistol from Area C. This stage would be illegal under USPSA frestyle rules.

 

Wm2hCSB.png

 

 

Here's another example:

 

Stage 2 - Engage rT1-6 with rifle through Port A and/or Port C, and engage pT1-6 with pistol through Port B.

 

cBt4FkP.png

 

Building the stage as shown above would be illegal under USPSA rules. Instead, the poor MD would have to build the monstrosity shown below - exact same shooting challenge, but a lot more work and expense. Why? Because "freestyle, as and when visible". Stupid, and one of the main reasons multigun matches run under USPSA rules are as rare as hens teeth.

 

BWXygJf.png

 

I follow. I see it both ways. 

 

As a SHOOTER I don’t like being told what to do—in any game. 

 

But I do understand the work and equipment it takes to build stages. Been there, done that, got the t shirt. I really don’t know what the best answer is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, StealthyBlagga said:

 

Yes and no. The problem with USPSA Multigun rules as written is that they are overly dogmatic about what freestyle means. Here are couple of stages I designed for outlaw multigun:

 

Stage 1 - Engage rT1-6 with rifle from Area A, then re-engage rT1-6 with rifle from Area B, then engage rT7-10 with rifle from Area C, then dump rifle in barrel. Next, engage pT1-8 with pistol from Area C. This stage would be illegal under USPSA frestyle rules.

 

Wm2hCSB.png

 

 

Here's another example:

 

Stage 2 - Engage rT1-6 with rifle through Port A and/or Port C, and engage pT1-6 with pistol through Port B.

 

cBt4FkP.png

 

Building the stage as shown above would be illegal under USPSA rules. Instead, the poor MD would have to build the monstrosity shown below - exact same shooting challenge, but a lot more work and expense. Why? Because "freestyle, as and when visible". Stupid, and one of the main reasons multigun matches run under USPSA rules are as rare as hens teeth.

 

BWXygJf.png

 

 

No offense, but stage design like this is one of the reasons  I no longer have any desire to shoot 3 gun.  If the stage description say do this, then this, then this, etc., it really starts to suck.  In the example of your 2nd stage, you might as well have 3 shooting boxes and be done and the rest of the stage procedure dictated in the WSB (assuming you have a WSB, many 3 gun places don't, that way when a shooter sees a hole in their stage that can be exploited, the RO can just say, "you can't do that, because we want you to shoot it the way we want you to").  Really what is the point of the car or barrels if you are worried about MD work and have the option of just dictating what get shot from where?

 

And this is not a personal attack on your stage design, I have seen and even set stages like this in 3 gun in many places and  didn't like them either.  You even said you don't like Virginia count, but many aspects of 3 gun stage design are like Virginia count, i.e.: you do this, then this, then this......

Edited by RJH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, RJH said:

 

 

No offense, but stage design like this is one of the reasons  I no longer have any desire to shoot 3 gun.  If the stage description say do this, then this, then this, etc., it really starts to suck.  In the example of your 2nd stage, you might as well have 3 shooting boxes and be done and the rest of the stage procedure dictated in the WSB (assuming you have a WSB, many 3 gun places don't, that way when a shooter sees a hole in their stage that can be exploited, the RO can just say, "you can't do that, because we want you to shoot it the way we want you to").  Really what is the point of the car or barrels if you are worried about MD work and have the option of just dictating what get shot from where?

 

And this is not a personal attack on your stage design, I have seen and even set stages like this in 3 gun in many places and  didn't like them either.  You even said you don't like Virginia count, but many aspects of 3 gun stage design are like Virginia count, i.e.: you do this, then this, then this......

 

The "first, then" WSB is common in multigun because there are, well, MULTIPLE guns, and one gun may have to be used before the other for safety reasons (not always, but most of the time). The same would likely apply to the proposed 2-gun sport.

 

The above examples are just some very  basic stages to illustrate how much extra work USPSA "freestyle, as seen" creates for the multigun MD with ZERO impact on the shooting challenge or enjoyability. There is nothing wrong with the above stages, just as there is nothing wrong with totally freestyle stages, memory stages etc., so long as they are part of a well balanced match. Even the first stage would be quite at home in a USPSA match, except that the MD would have to put down about twice as much fault line, 2-3x vision barriers and an extra array of rifle steel. In practice, everyone would still shoot it the same:

 

avNy6DE.png

 

My point is that, if we want to encourage MDs to run 2-Gun matches under some variation of USPSA rules (as Max is proposing), a few rules changes that make their lives much easier is not too much to ask - as an MD, I'd rather we debate this aspect than burn energy getting down in the weeds on whether a CO handgun should or should not be allowed in TO. It's not like throttling back on "freestyle, as seen" is completely alien to USPSA mutigun rules - under the current rules, the WSB can stipulate shooting defined targets from defined locations, but only for rifle and only beyond 100 yards. Simply allowing the same for all guns at all distances would resolve the issue. Unfortunately, USPSA leadership sees everything it does through the lens of handgun competition, which I guess is why they have so far failed to gain traction in multigun.

Edited by StealthyBlagga

Share this post


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

 

The "first, then" WSB is common in multigun because there are, well, MULTIPLE guns, and one gun may have to be used before the other for safety reasons (not always, but most of the time). The same would likely apply to the proposed 2-gun sport.

 

The above examples are just some very  basic stages to illustrate how much extra work USPSA "freestyle, as seen" creates for the multigun MD with ZERO impact on the shooting challenge or enjoyability. There is nothing wrong with the above stages, just as there is nothing wrong with totally freestyle stages, memory stages etc., so long as they are part of a well balanced match. Even the first stage would be quite at home in a USPSA match, except that the MD would have to put down about twice as much fault line, 2-3x vision barriers and an extra array of rifle steel. In practice, everyone would still shoot it the same:

 

avNy6DE.png

 

My point is that, if we want to encourage MDs to run 2-Gun matches under some variation of USPSA rules (as Max is proposing), a few rules changes that make their lives much easier is not too much to ask - as an MD, I'd rather we debate this aspect than burn energy getting down in the weeds on whether a CO handgun should or should not be allowed in TO. It's not like throttling back on "freestyle, as seen" is completely alien to USPSA mutigun rules - under the current rules, the WSB can stipulate shooting defined targets from defined locations, but only for rifle and only beyond 100 yards. Simply allowing the same for all guns at all distances would resolve the issue. Unfortunately, USPSA leadership sees everything it does through the lens of handgun competition, which I guess is why they have so far failed to gain traction in multigun.

 

I do agree that there would probably need to be some tweaking and a stage like the first one you posted would not be a huge issue, however there is generally way to much restriction on freestyle in 3 gun imo. And i am not talking about the safety type aspects. There is a line between freestyle and  basically Virginia count that allows extra shots, 3 gun crosses it too much right now. I would hate to see a 2 gun match that eliminates freestyle shooting, though I do know there would have to be adjustments.

 

 

And as an example,  your first stage after you added walls is considerably better when shot than; run to a box, run to a box, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess one other thing that would need to be considered is if the plan is uspsa with 2 guns or 3 gun minus shotgun, because those are really 2 different things.  It seems most 3 gunners are 3 gunners and most uspsa shooters are uspsa shooters with surprisingly little overlap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RJH said:

 

I do agree that there would probably need to be some tweaking and a stage like the first one you posted would not be a huge issue, however there is generally way to much restriction on freestyle in 3 gun imo. And i am not talking about the safety type aspects. There is a line between freestyle and  basically Virginia count that allows extra shots, 3 gun crosses it too much right now. I would hate to see a 2 gun match that eliminates freestyle shooting, though I do know there would have to be adjustments.

 

 

And as an example,  your first stage after you added walls is considerably better when shot than; run to a box, run to a box, etc

 

I don't disagree entirely, and would not want stages to be overly regimented either, but IMHO the way USPSA implements freestyle creates a significant disincentive for new MDs to come onboard. I understand why someone coming from a USPSA handgun background might feel more at home on the stage with the added walls, but the walls really do add absolutely nothing but extra work for the poor MD. If the USPSA shooting community is asking MDs to build them more match capacity, they owe it to us to consider meeting us half-way.

Edited by StealthyBlagga

Share this post


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

And as an example,  your first stage after you added walls is considerably better when shot than; run to a box, run to a box, etc

 What is gained by using ports in walls that you can see through over just specifying that you must shoot through freestanding ports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bdpaz said:

 What is gained by using ports in walls that you can see through over just specifying that you must shoot through freestanding ports?

Because a WSB that says "here's your stage, have fun" is a lot more interesting than one that gives you a script to follow. Besides, some guys need all the stage planning practice they can get, even if the single good way to shoot the stage is obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TonytheTiger said:

Because a WSB that says "here's your stage, have fun" is a lot more interesting than one that gives you a script to follow. 

This, 100% this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TonytheTiger said:

Because a WSB that says "here's your stage, have fun" is a lot more interesting than one that gives you a script to follow. Besides, some guys need all the stage planning practice they can get, even if the single good way to shoot the stage is obvious.

Still not seeing how "All shots must be through ports" as an alternative to setting up a buttload of walls that you can see through is giving you a script to follow?

 

To be more clear on the walls "that you can see through", what I'm asking is how is a freestanding port really different from a wall with a port in it - if you can see through the wall? The wall isn't a vision barrier so you can see what's coming up the same as with freestanding port.

Edited by bdpaz
To clarify the "see through" walls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bdpaz said:

 What is gained by using ports in walls that you can see through over just specifying that you must shoot through freestanding ports?


This. 100% this.  😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts on the equipment rules. 

 

For Factory rifle optics, just 1x would be good if matches were set up so target size and visibility supported it.  The option of a single fixed power would be good for people like me who have an old 3.5x TA11 on one of their guns.  The 3x option would be my last pick due to having to buy a new optic to best fit the rules.

 

The 1"x3" rule for breaks has a long history at this point.  I agree that it is best to continue its use for factory division.

 

For limited optics, I like the choice of limited or CO guns.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...