The State Of 3 Gunning

[kellyn]

Ok, here is a thread where you can speak out on the state of 3 gunning - the rules,the matches, whatever. Keep it civil, we're not a bunch of pistol shooters.

My observations:

1) USPSA versus the "Outlaws".

My favorite matches have tended to be the outlaw matches in particular Rocky Mtn. 3 gun and North American Tactical. That being said, I would like to see all the 3 gun matches move under the USPSA umbrella. Why? Consistency. We should have one set of equipment rules, one set of procedures and one scoring system. Having 5 sets of rules helps only those with the time and money to deal with them. It does not help 3 gun grow.

A person should be able to both attend and run a 3 gun match in BFE, Arizona and BFE, Maine and have consistency.

Perhaps it is just the nature of the beast. Look how practical pistol has spun itself off into little niches: Steel, Bianchi, IPSC, IDPA blah, blah. Where both shooters and equipment have become like specialized insects who are good at one thing only and who only expose themselves to the things they are good at as opposed to be well rounded.

We should prevent the same thing from happening to 3 Gun. USPSA has a lot to learn from the outlaws and vice versa!

2) Time plus scoring vs. Comstock

IMHO time plus scoring as practiced by SMM3G/Rocky Mountain 3 Gun allows for some pretty sloppy shooting. 2 Ds and you're good to go? C'mon.

I've shot all of the matches quite a bit and done well at all of them. And I am here to tell you that preparing for the time plus matches is all about SPEED, SPEED, SPEED. Accuracy is not the name of the game, especially w/ pistols. The only exception to this is the med-long range rifle shooting - something the outlaw matches deal with quite well. But other than that, accuracy has taken a back seat.

The advantage of time plus is that it is easy to use and everyone understands it - unlike Comstock.

I like Comstock scoring but if I were Caesar I would use time plus. But I would modify Enos scoring not the IMGA neutralization method. A adds no time, Major B/C adds .2 seconds, Minor B/C adds .5 sec. Major rifle and slug need only one hit, as long as it's a C or better. Or something along those lines.

3) Power factor

I am for the use of power factors. Power should be rewarded. Or is this a game of 9mms, I mean .380s, I mean .32s, I mean .22s, I mean .177s ....

[George]

I am totally with Kelly about the need to standardize safety and equipment rules (especially gear in HM and ASAP there if at all possible so more damage isn't done with differeing and competing systems).

The more places our individual gear division choices work, the more places we can all go play by just adding ammo and entry fees :-)

I am not sure if scoring needs to be homogenized yet, but do agree that IMG promulgates sloppy speed and that PF needs to be recognized/required in some manner.

I agree that the USPSA specifications for equipment and safety may be the best place to form an umbrella for many reasons. Several are as follows:

- Universal (generally) with the IPSC world (we should promulgate foreign exchange shooters as much as possible in both directions)

- Well hammered out and very comprehensive. Nothing vague. No room for interpretation.

- Published in "one" singular form and already in most everyones hands.

- PF is delineated and procedures that are reasonable are in place.

Just my .01959

--

Regards,

Edited October 18, 2005 by George

[TeamGE]

I am glad to see that I am not the only one that feels the same about the issues at hand.

1) Agreed, one set of rules will do more for this sport, then anything else.

2) Absolutely Agreed, I have felt the same way for a long time. I would have to admit that shooting the 05 Nationals was a wake up call on "A" hits for me, because I got so use to just 2 hits any where. In the previous months, shooting IMGA rules at 3 major outlaw matches, put me into hosing mode. While fun, it is not where I feel my shoot skills are tested. Bring back the accuracy, and the competition gets ferce.

3) Agreed, it's just common sence.

[tewlman]

other than the fact that it makes scoring your own stages a biatch, i think the san angelo worked great at the us3g. and it rewards power and accuracy. Can someone come up with a good reason why we shouldn't just use it across the board?

[SinistralRifleman]

1) USPSA versus the "Outlaws".

My favorite matches have tended to be the outlaw matches in particular Rocky Mtn. 3 gun and North American Tactical.  That being said, I would like to see all the 3 gun matches move under the USPSA umbrella.  Why?  Consistency.  We should have one set of equipment rules, one set of procedures and one scoring system.  Having 5 sets of rules helps only those with the time and money to deal with them.  It does not help 3 gun grow.

A person should be able to both attend and run a 3 gun match in BFE, Arizona and BFE, Maine and have consistency.

Saying all matches should be USPSA to me is a lot like saying all fast food restaurants should be Taco Bell, or all stores should be Walmart. “The product is mediocre, but at least it is consistent and you know what to expect”...people are paying for a service when attending a match, so the match they attend should be able to be tailored for the tastes of the people shooting it and the people running it with considerations to unique facilities and props being given.

Perhaps it is just the nature of the beast.  Look how practical pistol has spun itself off into little niches: Steel, Bianchi, IPSC, IDPA blah, blah.  Where both shooters and equipment have become like specialized insects who are good at one thing only and who only expose themselves to the things they are good at as opposed to be well rounded.

We should prevent the same thing from happening to 3 Gun.  USPSA has a lot to learn from the outlaws and vice versa!

The nature of 3 gun prevents such specialization with good stage design…there are too many diverse scenarios a shooter can encounter to have equipment be so specialized. The primary consideration for most 3 gun shooters in equipment I think is what optic to use based on the range of targets at a match, beyond that I don’t see anything becoming that specialized.

What I do believe is the nature of the beast, is the more people involved in shooting, the more factions there will be that arise within it. Not everyone wants to shoot the same way with the same set of rules. Not everyone has the same mindset when it comes to shooting. Some people go to win, Some people go to practice deadly martial skills, Some to simply have fun, Some to beat their friends…and combinations of all of those things. One organization with one set of rules cannot service all those interests.

2)  Time plus scoring vs. Comstock

IMHO time plus scoring as practiced by SMM3G/Rocky Mountain 3 Gun allows for some pretty sloppy shooting.  2 Ds and you're good to go?  C'mon. 

I've shot all of the matches quite a bit and done well at all of them. And I am here to tell you that preparing for the time plus matches is all about SPEED, SPEED, SPEED.  Accuracy is not the name of the game, especially w/ pistols.  The only exception to this is the med-long range rifle shooting - something the outlaw matches deal with quite well.  But other than that, accuracy has taken a back seat. 

The advantage of time plus is that it is easy to use and everyone understands it - unlike Comstock.

I like Comstock scoring but if I were Caesar I would use time plus.  But I would modify Enos scoring not the IMGA neutralization method.  A adds no time, Major B/C adds .2 seconds, Minor B/C adds .5 sec. Major rifle and slug need only one hit, as long as it's a C or better.  Or something along those lines.

Time plus scoring I think is the most simple and efficient to score..and as you said everyone easily understands it. Paladin Scoring is one option where each zone represents a certain amount of points, and 7 points are required to neutralize…again this takes time to add up.

I would be willing to concede that people using rifles with a power factor equivalent to factory .308 or more only need 1 C Zone or better or two hits anywhere to neutralized

3)  Power factor

I am for the use of power factors.  Power should be rewarded.  Or is this a game of 9mms, I mean .380s, I mean .32s, I mean .22s, I mean .177s ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is easily solved with stage design and the types of targets used. Use heavier steel targets if you want people to be rewarded for shooting heavier calibers. Using short barrels with lower muzzle velocity usually makes it harder to knock down steel targets on rifle stages. Using shot loads that are too light causes a shooter the same problem. Use more targets like the MGM triple dropper that take a variable number of rounds to neutralize.

I think diversity is the strength of 3 Gun Matches. Making them all uniform and cookie cutter will be the death of them. And while we are on the subject, USPSA rules and some of the arrogant people who participate in them do more to scare away new shooters from participating than anything else. In my experience new shooters are much more attracted to the simplicity of multi-gun “outlaw” matches.

[Flexmoney]

SinistralRifleman,

You make some good points.

I don't think anyone want matches to be all Taco Bell. I think everybody wants a good steak and potatoe dinner, they just don't want to have to eat them with chop-sticks. (if that makes any sense?)

[SinistralRifleman]

I don't think anyone want matches to be all Taco Bell.  I think everybody wants a good steak and potatoe dinner, they just don't want to have to eat them with chop-sticks.  (if that makes any sense?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

makes sense perfectly.

My thoughts are basically we should stop trying to change what everyone else is doing, and help grow whichever particular variation of the sport that we care for the most. The more people involved in any aspect of practical action shooting, the better.

[Platinum]

Gents,

A very interesting thread I just had to add my two cents to. I understand that you guys are talking about the major matches, but keep the NA Tactical (Kyle's match) in mind as I opine.

Last year I started a 3 gun club here in Richmond, VA. My model for 3 gun is the NA Tactical and my stage design reflects that. There is another club with similar orientation in MD (coincidentally both of us are former USPSA as well as the clubs) and we have found a real thirst for 3 gun matches (no surprise there). Count me on the "outlaw" side of this discussion. The main issues raised here, I handle this way:

-PF doesn't matter, but nothing less than .223. 12 ga. and 9mm can play.

-We have all the usual classifications (Limited/Open/Tactical/ He-She man.

-Accuracy? We use Time plus for scoring (the D zone doesn't exist, scoring is quick and easy) and course design is used to dial in the difficulty/accuracy level.

-All stages are at least two gun, but mostly all three are used (we take "3 Gun" literally). Transitioning from one hot weapon to another is the norm for course design.

-Pistol is almost always "hot" and can be used to finish a stage if long gun fails.

-No race guns (pistols) or race holsters - we shoot and move and roll on the ground a bit and require strong retention for the holster used.

If there are to be rules, let them be Outlaw rules.

Joe

Edited October 18, 2005 by Platinum

[scottmilk9]

Platinum, are you saying get rid of the "D" zone? thats an interesting concept and i like it.

I dont like power factor, you cant tell me a .40 cal is gonna be that much more effective than a 9mm. Plus design stages so it takes out the power factor, if someone wants to cheat, they'll pay in the long run.

Transitioning firearms is great. Im not sure what the stance USPSA takes on this.

Pistol always being hot is ideal also(as long as your the shooter) finishing a stage when you have a malfunction is what its all about, DNF sucks

As for no race guns, i'm all for it, but there still is a lot of people who shoot them.

Outlaw matches for me.

[Bronco]

The outlaw matches seem to adapt more quickly to shooter impute as they don't have the embedded bureaucracy of USPSA. If you recall USPSA had to be dragged kicking and screaming, well maybe shuffling and moaning to the multigun table. It just seems with competing organizations there would be more of a reason for them both to listen to the shooters. Innovation would also suffer with only one governing body. If someone is willing to put together a 3 gun match they should be able to use whatever rules fit their match the best. I guess I'm a true capitalist, I like competition and the resulting choices it offers. Keith

[George]

I don't think consolidation is the thing to do so much as to get the various organizations to use one set of safety and equipment rules so wherever you go, your reflexes and gear are good to go :-) The scoring can be different, but the range commands and safe carry modes and handling procedures sure oughta' be similar to a very great degree, if not exactly the same IMO.

Gear compatability just makes sense for those of us who either work for a living, or live in states where what we have already must suffice (or both).

--

Regards,

[Garryowen]

I just got the E-Mail from USPSA today that my membership has expired and to re-new...

I am not only NOT going to re-new my membership, but I will also no, longer sponsor USPSA matches (with the exception of SOME of the 3-gun matches). Over the years I have donated over $50K to USPSA matches and the one time I asked them for a favor (putting a notice in Front Sight for my match), I got no help (even though I was told they would). The types/forms of shooting/competing they do don’t reflect my customer base or my personal tastes. They are still using rules that were based off of shooting wheel guns and Single stacks back in the 1970’s and some of the open shooters treat their firearms as if they were Golf Clubs.

I actually can’t remember the last time I shot a USPSA match (pistol or 3-gun), so I am firmly in the “Out Law” camp on this one.

[Platinum]

"Platinum, are you saying get rid of the "D" zone? thats an interesting concept and i like it."

Yes, I am. I can't take credit for the concept, but it does stress focus on shot placement. If you really want to stress accuracy, you'd use an IDPA target and allow only hits in the "zero down" ring.

It's all about playing hard (but safely) with the toys you have. One concept I have carried over from USPSA days is all stages are problems the shooter has to solve and I design in several ways he/she can do that.

After looking over some of the comments about the recent "3 Gun" nationals, it bears repeating that 3 gun matches shouldn't be pistol matches.

Joe

Edited October 18, 2005 by Platinum

[3GunF1Guy]

If you did not come the USPSA 3-gun 2005 nationals because you have meet range lawyers at USPSA pistol matches, you missed out. I saw NO range lawyering and did not even hear of any at this year 3-gun. I was on squad 2 and we had a great time shooting the match. A lot of people had to shoot stage 10 in a lot wind and some didn’t. Our squad shot it in dead calm air, we were lucky, an hour earlier there was some real wind that made it REAL hard to hit a 326 yard swinger. If I had shot it in the wind I would have said, “That was hard, we were unlucky.” but I would not want to have the stage thrown out. I did not see any protests and shotters shot it and dealt with it like gentlemen. (This may be a broad statement and I am not trying to speak for everyone) I think 3-gunners are a little different than some of the range lawyer pistol shooters. As someone who runs an "outlaw" club everyone should really have an open mind to the new rules of USPSA 3-gun. It really made no difference to the speed the match ran. I agree with kellyn statement at the start of this thread.

Scott Peterson

[MikeFoley]

True time plus scoring is real similar to Kelly's idea, adding time for sloppy hits and lots of timefor misses. This is most common at IDPA, GSSF, ICORE, Steel Challenge.

San Angelo seems to be popular, especially where it was created. It is a little difficult to figure out, but I have not studied it in depth, and only shot under those rules once.

USPSA's traditional scoring method works perfect except when combining major and minor guns, and that has been the biggest issue in the past few years. It has been discussed and even argued many times.

Paladin scoring requires one A hit, or two other hits for target neutralization. This is also difficult to score for the novice.

All of these systems have merit, and can be properly applied.

There is a set of gear that you can use and play everywhere, even though it may not be "your" gear of choice.

The flavor of these matches would be altered if they were cloned under one set of rules. Some top three gunners are obviously used to changing their equipment, or adapting to different scoring systems. It seems real important that one study the rules prior to any match that is new to them.

USPSA has traditionally been inflexible on 3Gun, until this year, and I was happy to hear that the powers that be realized we needed an improvement, especially for multi-gun. Unfortunately I did not make 3Gun Nats for the first time in 3 years. I was glad to see the improvement of being able to dump hot guns safely. This obviously cut the number of DQs by 75% from 2004-2005. I look forward to the KY ST 3G CH later this month.

There can be some standardization, and it would be handy. Total standardization would probably stem more of the outlaw movement however.

On power factor, major should be rewarded. The problem comes in that a lot of us don't view the .223 the same as we do a 9mm or 20ga. The calculation we have used for 30 years in pistol simply ignores the fast moving, small projectiles popular in today's rifles. Maybe the power factor for rifle should be reviewed. A graduated scale could be adapted for cartridge diameter and velocity that would follow the trends from factory .223 on up.

There will never be any way to make everyone totally happy, but I applaud those who put the effort into 3Gun matches regardless of the rules.

Edited October 18, 2005 by fomeister

[gunny]

+1 On Everything Sinstral and GarryOwen said!!!

I've Shot SMM3G, RM3G, IRONMAN, USPSA 3G NATS, and the CAVARMS matches.

At the IRONMAN if someones gun pukes on a stage, a second gun can be run to the competitor. (Sportmanship)

At the CAVARMS match (last years) you could complete a course of fire with your pistol. (Tactical, real world scenario!)

The RM3G is the quintessential 3gun match that everybody tries to imitate. (Good job guys!)

The USPSA 3G Nats is a hose fest with no LR rifle skills tested. And super squads are treated as upperclassmen when it comes to adjudication of questionable issues. (The theme from Barney comes to mind, "I love you, you love me, we're a happy family, , ,)

I watched one of the super squads run a stage this year. Two different competitors demanded the RM's decision on puny issues, another shot 1/2 the stage and demanded and got a reshoot. Hell of a way to accumulate points. I wanted to vomit. If every squad shot this way we would still be shooting.

Moreover, the recalcitrant attitudes and actions of *some* USPSA shooters is definitely not a welcome mat to new shooters.

The USPSA shooters classification system is seriously abused. For example an "A" class shooter in limited shoots a "C" qualifier in producation, then competes in the 3G nats with a limited pistol in "C" class.

I am a classified USPSA shooter and will continue to shoot USPSA pistol matches, and 3G matches if they are conviently located. There is expotential room for improvement in USPSA 3G matches.

In summary, keep USPSA, USPSA.

Competition from the other "Outlaw?" 3G matches is and will be the caveat for change at USPSA. Albiet, slowly, very slowly.

[Zak Smith]

1. Ditch the shotgun. This sport is about "practical" use. It's an antiquated weapon with very limited and focussed applications where it's the best solution to a practical problem. Door-breeching is one of those applications. CQB is better served by a carbine. Unless we're developing marksmanship and gunhandling in preparation for a vampire bat attack, it's useless. In its place, I would personally prefer a long range precision rifle, a subgun, or some type of physical challenge or orienteering component.

2. Allow the shooter to use whatever guns he wants and engage "most of" the targets with whatever weapons he wants, with a limitation on what kinds of rounds may impact which targets, just like CavArms did at Tiger Valley for Trooper. As a corrolary, the shooter should always be able to back-up to his pistol if his long gun goes down.

3. Rocky Mtn 3Gun has been the pioneer in "sane" hot-gun and gun-ditching protocol. A pistol should always be able to be holstered hot. I personally believe a rifle should be able to be put on "safe" and dropped on a sling as long as muzzle control is exercised.

4. Overall match total time scoring is sub-optimal in that short stages are meaningless (WACO match 2004-05).

5. Complex scoring sucks-- its difficulty is roughly proportionate to the amount of information the RO has to communicate to the person with the clipboard as they score the targets. Along with this point, power factors have a purpose, but I'm not sure if the administrative overhead is worth it. The alternative is telling people steel is variable and TFB if they can't knock it over with 1 shot. Taking this point too far are devices a reasonably competent shooter cannot knock over in a reasonable number of rounds (e.g. MGM's 360* swingers with 9mm - the MD tried to do it with a Glock 18 mag and didn't get it over).

6. Institutional bureaucracy resists progress, and often does "the wrong thing."

7. "Classes" for awards/prize table make NO SENSE without an ongoing national classificaition system (like USPSA has). MGM did this. It was lame. Even with a USPSA-like classification system, it seems wrong to award someone at the 50th percentile overall while not rewarding someone at the 71st percentile.

8. With regard to standardization, I REALLY DOUBT many (any?) "Outlaw" matches will "come into the tent" if it "cramps their style." They don't need the USPSA banner to draw shooters-- they already draw 250+ and have to turn people away. Safety and procedural rules are already pretty similar anyway since we are roughly in the same "community". (As an exercise, go to a "Sniper" match and notice how the safety protocol is different.)

9. Discussing standardization with USPSA being the "default answer" is terribly ironic. First of all, Front Sight has been historically LOATHE to acknowledge other (I mean, the established, high-draw) 3Gun matches and even their shooters! Second of all, it is the "odd man out" with respect to rules.

(This post edited by Zak Smith )

Edited October 19, 2005 by Zak Smith

[MikeFoley]

Right on Zak!

I am in for sub-gun, long range rifle, and orienteering. Hell, I got all those merit badges except sub-gun(still working on it). While I like shotgun shooting, it is not feasible to think that it is the solution for a 32 round field course all by itself, and that is common place. I still think it has a place, but not to the extent that the shotgun reload determines winners.

I like the idea of the orienteering component a great deal. While I wouldn't mind the physical fitness portion, it would seriously prohibit a lot of competitors. A lot of people have never been exposed to any type of land navigation. While I was well trained and tested in my youth with a map and compass, estimation of distance, and different ways to cross a river, obstacle, mountain, valley, or cliff, I have never even picked up a GPS. Sadly, a lot of shooters I see these days wouldn't or couldn't do it either physically or mentally. There are matches like NC Recon, NA Tactical, and numerous small matches(TN in certain years) that test fitness.

You have some great ideas, and they sound fun to me, but everyone is not up this type of challenge, and the matches should be fun for everyone. I totally agree with 4-9 too.

Would you support my effort to bring back the phrase "Right on!"?

[George]

Would you support my effort to bring back the phrase "Right on!"?

Right On!

[Hey QuicksDraw!]

Zak,

How are the safety protocols different at sniper matches?

[Zak Smith]

fomeister,

You're right about a physical/orienteering/cross-country component. It will rule out a lot of people who like to shoot, but have bed knees, etc. Then there's the whole logistical problem. I personally love matches like that, but I realize it's not really conventional 3Gun. I just keep looking at the Shotgun and wondering, "Why am I shooting this?"

How are the safety protocols different at sniper matches?

They have ranged from more or less similar, to "WTF?", to what we would consider gross safety violations.

-z

[SinistralRifleman]

Points 1 and 2 of Zak's post will probably be implemented at the 2006 Cavalry Arms Match.

1) Shotgun won't be eliminated, but will be left optional for those who choose to use it

2) True multi-gun format:

Paper Targets: Rifle, Pistol, or Shotgun Slug

Steel Targets under 100 yards: Pistol or Shotgun Shot

Steel Targets over 100 yards: Rifle, Pistol, or Slug

More problem solving on the part of the shooter....you determine which of your firearms will work best and in what combination in a given scenerio.

Edited October 19, 2005 by SinistralRifleman

[tewlman]

More problem solving on the part of the shooter....you determine which of your firearms will work best and in what combination in a given scenerio.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this sounds great till you have everone running around shooting every stage with their beta mag and not using pistol or shotgun

[Jim Norman]

One innovation? that we introduced in our match is that all stages are worth the exact same thing towards the match. We used HF scoring to achieve a percentage. that is converted to a whole number and becomes your points for the stage.

EX: a 85.75% is simply 85.75points. This eliminates the biggest problem with time scoreing. a single long range stage that most people hoot in say 225 seconds and one really good shooter does in say 110 skews the match, he can screw up quite a bit on all the short stages and still win. By all stages being equal toeards the match you simply have to be good across the board.

Jim Norman

[Zak Smith]

I think that's how RM3G has been scored since 2003?