Multi Gun Scoring

[3gunr]

Here's another twist. Dennis Heath has been holding the NC RECON match for 12 or 13 years now, and he is .308 nuetral/friendly? All paper must have 2 .223 hits or one .308 hit in the A,B, or C zone. A hit in the D zone is a miss on paper and scored as such. He also uses reduced sized targets where any 2 minor hits will do, and again one major hit with rifle. All steel requires one hit regardless of rifle caliber. All time based,misses are 10 seconds added. This allows a .308 to compete, really helps a 20 round .308 to compete with a 40+ round AR15 in .223. Again stage design is key. Its all heads up as far as equipment 12 guage any type no mag restrictions but no ports or optics or speed loaders. Pistols no ports or optics any lenght mag...no race holsters. Rifle irons or one optic, no mag restrictions. Here again the stage may call for limited rounds loaded to start or call for a mandatory reload. A good format and a great match, a real shooting competition rather than an equipment race or "gaming" festival.

What say you all?

3gunr

[Charles Bond]

We are getting lots of fun responses here but keep in mind the issue is multigun scoring and how to fix hte problems with it.

As much as I respect Col Cooper, times change. At the time he set the floor for the pf he set it based on what the military was using. If the military had been using something different, that pf would have been different. The weapon of choice and the ammo it fires has now changed to one which is lower. If we stay consistent we make the same change.

Whether or not the military made a good change or a bad change when they moved to the 223 about 30 years ago is not really the issue since it has been the main battle rifle for a period of enough length we can no longer say it is an experiment or even temporary. Debate that all day but this is not real world but rather a game we all like to play. We have problems with major minor scoring in mulitigun for reasons well set out by those who posted before this one.

The history of the caliber of US military weapons goes something like this: 50 caliber, 45/70, 30/40, 30-06, 308, 223. Set that up on a graph and the indication of where we might be headed next is pretty clear. Choosing the effectiveness of a caliber to apply in all circumstances is like choosing between which color of rose your wife might enjoy. We can debate this all day but the thinking in Washington on this issue has been rather exhaustive.

The real issue remains why give extra credit for the 308 shooters? Should we give extra extra credit for someone who wants to shoot the 45/70? As someone has alread noted, dead is dead which is the result of an A hit to the target. Let's not compare D hits since for all I care, we could do away with the D zone altogether.

Charles

[Mick]

"The history of the caliber of US military weapons goes something like this: 50 caliber, 45/70, 30/40, 30-06, 308, 223. Set that up on a graph and the indication of where we might be headed next is pretty clear....."

There was an 4.85mm experimental round but since is used a 50 grain bullet at 5.56 velocities, why have it???

With ammo getting scarce and expensive, I see the need to accomodate the PF and shooters with what is current with the military. If that means dropping the rifle's major PF to 165 or so then let's do it...

[Mike P]

We are getting lots of fun responses here but keep in mind the issue is multigun scoring and how to fix hte problems with it.

As much as I respect Col Cooper, times change. At the time he set the floor for the pf he set it based on what the military was using. If the military had been using something different, that pf would have been different. The weapon of choice and the ammo it fires has now changed to one which is lower. If we stay consistent we make the same change.

Whether or not the military made a good change or a bad change when they moved to the 223 about 30 years ago is not really the issue since it has been the main battle rifle for a period of enough length we can no longer say it is an experiment or even temporary. Debate that all day but this is not real world but rather a game we all like to play. We have problems with major minor scoring in mulitigun for reasons well set out by those who posted before this one.

The history of the caliber of US military weapons goes something like this: 50 caliber, 45/70, 30/40, 30-06, 308, 223. Set that up on a graph and the indication of where we might be headed next is pretty clear. Choosing the effectiveness of a caliber to apply in all circumstances is like choosing between which color of rose your wife might enjoy. We can debate this all day but the thinking in Washington on this issue has been rather exhaustive.

The real issue remains why give extra credit for the 308 shooters? Should we give extra extra credit for someone who wants to shoot the 45/70? As someone has alread noted, dead is dead which is the result of an A hit to the target. Let's not compare D hits since for all I care, we could do away with the D zone altogether.

Charles

The reason to give extra credit to .308 shooters is as said before, it is much more powerful and at least in theory more difficult to to shoot well at speed than the lower powered cartridges. It has nothing to do with the military's preferred caliber, they do things for their own reasons. If you were to tie the power floor to what Uncle Sam uses then why isn't major pistol set at 125?

There is not a need to water down the power factor in order to make a match easier to score. There are already several systems that work, just not with USPSA's program. What would be wrong with adopting a completely different scoring system for multi-gun as it is a completely different game.

Mike

[AFH]

I realize that no scoring system is going to be considered perfect by everyone, and I would like to get away from the power factor debate and back to the scoring issue. There is, however, some overlap in the two.

Competitive 3 gun shooting is a sport in which competitors are free to use a great variety of equipment depending on which division they elect to participate in. Just as drag racing has separate divisions for Top Fuel, Funny Cars, etc. to allow folks to compete where they like, so does 3 gun. The reason the divisions exist is because of the different equipment approved for use in each. A shooter in Tactical Irons is not going to able to keep up with someone in Open. I agree with those who have posted in the "New Old Scoring" thread that divisions should be completely separated in scoring, and, as long as divisions are separated, the question of rifle power factor in 3 gun is pretty much a moot point .

I prefer matches which disregard power factor all together. Placing appropriate targets at the right distances can make sure that competitors are using ammo with sufficient energy. I also happen to be in the camp that enjoys the "outlaw" matches which use IMGA-type rules and scoring, rather than the USPSA system. The attempt to apply their pistol scoring methodology to 3 gun unnecessarily complicates 3 gun scoring. I may be wrong, having only been shooting 3 gun for about 6 years, but I don’t remember power factor being a big issue in 3 gun until USPSA Multi-gun came into being (other than the Heavy Metal division).

As currently ran, many matches have a Heavy Metal division for those who wish to shoot .308. If a competitor chooses to use a .308 in Scoped Tactical division, he should be scored just as those who shoot .223. I realize I may be taking Mike P's statement slightly out of context, but no one at a 3 gun match should get "extra credit" for shooting a more powerful cartridge. The scoring of a stage should be the same in each division for everyone under those rules regardless of caliber. Just as someone may choose to run an EOTech and someone else may choose a 2-8 variable scope, we all get to choose which caliber we want to shoot. Each of these optics has its strong and weak points, and each caliber has its strong and weak points.

For the above reasons, plus others, I like the proposal Daniel posted. Accuracy is emphasized more than with the “2 anywhere” rule, higher penalties for longer targets are in place, and a 1 gun stage is not as valuable overall as a multigun stage. Hopefully, such a combination of Vickers and Stage Point Percentages (I don’t know the right term) scoring will achieve a balance in speed/accuracy and the value of each stage in relation to the others. This seems similar to what Cactustactical, ap3, and some others are advocating. The penalties for long range targets, no shoots, and non-Alpha/Beta hits may be slightly different, but the overall plan seems close.

Andy

[Mike P]

I realize that no scoring system is going to be considered perfect by everyone, and I would like to get away from the power factor debate and back to the scoring issue. There is, however, some overlap in the two.

Competitive 3 gun shooting is a sport in which competitors are free to use a great variety of equipment depending on which division they elect to participate in. Just as drag racing has separate divisions for Top Fuel, Funny Cars, etc. to allow folks to compete where they like, so does 3 gun. The reason the divisions exist is because of the different equipment approved for use in each. A shooter in Tactical Irons is not going to able to keep up with someone in Open. I agree with those who have posted in the "New Old Scoring" thread that divisions should be completely separated in scoring, and, as long as divisions are separated, the question of rifle power factor in 3 gun is pretty much a moot point .

I prefer matches which disregard power factor all together. Placing appropriate targets at the right distances can make sure that competitors are using ammo with sufficient energy. I also happen to be in the camp that enjoys the "outlaw" matches which use IMGA-type rules and scoring, rather than the USPSA system. The attempt to apply their pistol scoring methodology to 3 gun unnecessarily complicates 3 gun scoring. I may be wrong, having only been shooting 3 gun for about 6 years, but I don’t remember power factor being a big issue in 3 gun until USPSA Multi-gun came into being (other than the Heavy Metal division).

As currently ran, many matches have a Heavy Metal division for those who wish to shoot .308. If a competitor chooses to use a .308 in Scoped Tactical division, he should be scored just as those who shoot .223. I realize I may be taking Mike P's statement slightly out of context, but no one at a 3 gun match should get "extra credit" for shooting a more powerful cartridge. The scoring of a stage should be the same in each division for everyone under those rules regardless of caliber. Just as someone may choose to run an EOTech and someone else may choose a 2-8 variable scope, we all get to choose which caliber we want to shoot. Each of these optics has its strong and weak points, and each caliber has its strong and weak points.

For the above reasons, plus others, I like the proposal Daniel posted. Accuracy is emphasized more than with the “2 anywhere” rule, higher penalties for longer targets are in place, and a 1 gun stage is not as valuable overall as a multigun stage. Hopefully, such a combination of Vickers and Stage Point Percentages (I don’t know the right term) scoring will achieve a balance in speed/accuracy and the value of each stage in relation to the others. This seems similar to what Cactustactical, ap3, and some others are advocating. The penalties for long range targets, no shoots, and non-Alpha/Beta hits may be slightly different, but the overall plan seems close.

Andy

You are right. I can live with no scoring advantage to .308 (or .338, or .458, etc.)as long as there is no pf scoring advantage anywhere else, even pistols. In other words, don't give a .40 a scoring advantage over a nine then not give a .30 an advantage over a .22, eh?

That said, I still like the idea of a .30 cal rule wherein only one shot anywhere inside the a,b,c zone is sufficient for no penalty. It one of those things that keeps it interesting, I'd be very surprised if any of the "top dawgs" chose to go that route, but it does give you some other options/obstacles in the way you choose to shoot a stage.

Mike

Mike

[Scout454]

Last year NC Recon was one A-B-C with a .308/.30-06 or 2 with a .223 to neutralize.

This year it was 2 hits with a .308 and 4 with a .223.

Both years the match was won by someone shooting a .308.

[Les Snyder]

the following is just a rambling of an old man, read for novelty only

1. we are playing a game, the targets do not shoot back and for the most part stand still for us to shoot at them

2. there is a "Walter Mitty" side to the competition for me when I am fortunate enough to shoot against those that are combat veterans... I havent been there and haven't don that...( the last time I got shot at was coming out of a bar in Angeles City in 73) I haven't faced any of Kyle's PUSB targets (pop up shoot back) nor do I plan on it, but it still is fun to compare my limited skills to those that have ...no I wont be in the top 20, but I'll keep sending in my money as long as they let me

3. the hosts of the Ft Benning and Ft Bragg matches shoot for the most part 9mm and 5.56x45, which are minor in USPSA but have been known to be fairly lethal in the real world

4. it would be nice to standardize the rules... something like 2 "C's" to neutralize the target with pistol or minor rifle... if you want to acknowledge a major power factor for rifle, 1 "C" or better, and one hit on target with a 12ga slug .... Jeff are you listening?

5. make the scoring easy on the people gracious enough to put on the match, and make it easy on the Range Officers that officiate the match

it has been a long week, trying to explain the finer points of quantum mechanics and Planck"s constant to 150 9th graders....

have a very safe and happy Veterans weekend

Les Snyder

6918th Scty Sq Hakata, Japan

6922nd Scty Gp Clark, PI

[M ammo]

Mr. Bond, your statement to the effect that USPSA ignores shotgun and rifle shooters is ...........................well, the reason it does not sell out its "Nationals". It is a sad point but it is a point!!!

As for allowing more points for shooting "major", I once heard a story about Col. Cooper that when HE decided to place the major pf floor at the .45 acp hardball level, he would hear nothing about allowing more points for someone who shot with a .44 mag. because in his mind the .45/1911 was the do all end all of personal combat handguns, It is funny to note that later he decided to bring out a "better" mousetrap in the 10mm/CZ.

Now that i've pissed off folks for messing with the Col.!!!!! It is scientifically proven that it is much EASIER to shoot a gun faster, and be more accurate when it kicks you with less energy. So awarding more points for mastering a gun that kicks harder, and is harder to shoot because of it, I have no problem with. Also the military is concerned with occupying the time of enemy combatants and thier support structure, so wounding one is much more desireable than out and out killing one. WW2, was fought back before the military strategists figured that one out, thus having a larger more powerful round was,.............more desireable. Which leads back to why more and more troops now, are looking for bigger rounds with more lethality. 6.8's, 308's, heavy 223's, etc.

They're just more effective, there is no such thing as "too dead"

Trapr

You made all good points. Warfare and 3 gun have some differences.

But just to stir the Pot.

Myth Busters was shooting that pig hanging on the stand.

The only cartridge that moved it enough to make it fall was 12 GA slugs and Buckshot.

All of the other popular cartridges blew right through MP-5 9mm full auto just punched holes as did the .45 Thompson. And .308

Shot placement.

The time it takes to recover shot to shot is the argument.

If you want to chop down a building that is Crew served .30 Cal + is

Or calling in indirect. AT-4 or tank to take out the building. the tool for the job.

For me close in 12 GA is king. 100+ all rifle cartridges will take him out of the fight, you just have to let them allow them to bleed out, just like hunting.

All pistols are just a little something, to hold you over until you get both hands full. Of the correct tool for the job.

You were so right about the Nationals. I’m not a speedy pistol guy, so that didn’t help me. I still had a good time

I talked to you at TacPro. Just before I shot the blind stage. After they got the cows moved out.

Jim M ammo