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

IMGA scoring for .308


Recommended Posts

I was having this discussion with a well respected, well known multigunner, and we both felt that this was viable and would bring out more .308 guns.

Since it seems that knowing your customer is what is important, and doing what the people want is the right thing,

ponder this................................How would 3 gunners and multigunners, feel if a match recognized the .308 or lets just say 340PF (split the difference) and allowed it to neutralize a target with 1 A, B or C zone hit, or 2 hits anywhere in the scoring area.

this would effectively allow the current crop of .308 Battle rifles to compete on a more even playing field with the higher capacity .223 Assault rifles. Basically it would allow the .308 shooter to neutralize the same amount of targets with a 20rd magazine as the .223 does with a 40rd magazine. and since we have a growing number of reliable magazines for .223 approaching 40-50 round cpapcity, this does not put it at a disadvantage, plus with some .308 rifles using 25 or 30 round mags it still allows for the higher capacity .223 mags, like the Beta or Tripp 52 round mag.

The divisions would simply be IRONS, or OPTICS. All for Tactical rifles only.

I ask this because we think we would like to try it out at a match, the shooter decides what caliber they feel would provide them with the best compromise.

please feel free to voice any and all comments.

Trapr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was having this discussion with a well respected, well known multigunner, and we both felt that this was viable and would bring out more .308 guns.

Since it seems that knowing your customer is what is important, and doing what the people want is the right thing,

ponder this................................How would 3 gunners and multigunners, feel if a match recognized the .308 or lets just say 340PF (split the difference) and allowed it to neutralize a target with 1 A, B or C zone hit, or 2 hits anywhere in the scoring area.

this would effectively allow the current crop of .308 Battle rifles to compete on a more even playing field with the higher capacity .223 Assault rifles. Basically it would allow the .308 shooter to neutralize the same amount of targets with a 20rd magazine as the .223 does with a 40rd magazine. and since we have a growing number of reliable magazines for .223 approaching 40-50 round cpapcity, this does not put it at a disadvantage, plus with some .308 rifles using 25 or 30 round mags it still allows for the higher capacity .223 mags, like the Beta or Tripp 52 round mag.

The divisions would simply be IRONS, or OPTICS. All for Tactical rifles only.

I ask this because we think we would like to try it out at a match, the shooter decides what caliber they feel would provide them with the best compromise.

please feel free to voice any and all comments.

Trapr

Trapr,

Dang - thought I was the only guy who didn't make it to the range this morning. Think your idea has a lot of merit and it could make our current competitions a bit more dynamic and interesting. Not an expert here, just a guy with an M1A that I LOVE but have only used once in 3-Gun because I simply couldn't be competitive with it. Under your scoring system, I'd be more apt to bring out the "Big Boy" for 3-Gun fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Tapp does this type of scoring at his Tac rifle match, the next one is on March 29 at Steel City. They recognize optics and irons in both .308 and .223. Also recognized is M1 Garand power factor which scores neutralized by one round anywhere. There does tend to be more participation from major calibers than is usual, but it is still mostly peanut pusher carbines.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merlin, I think a number of factors would easily keep the .223 in the game, and if it does generate more interest in .308 maybe the manufacturers will generate more accessories, it seems the military is finding out that PF does matter.

Besides what are you doing on the computer, you should be out wandering catastrophe wastelands!!!

Trapr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KellyN feel free to back me up here but if memory serves me right we have been doing this in the AZ police games for years and it works out good. We have seen some 308's win out/compete/beat out with 223's. I think it has worked out well in that venue.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was how I set up the scoring for the 3-gun match I put on yesterday. Had two guys that I knew were going to shoot .308's, but one didn't show and the other was worried about being competative so he shot my tac AR instead. BTW, my matches are small potatoes. I had 15 shooters for 5 stages. But dang it, we had fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

What is wrong with the current USPSA scoring system?

Doesn't USPSA already reward 308 shooters with Major scoring??

Why do we want to even out the playing field between 223 and 308? We have Open, Limited, Single Stack, Production, etc-so that people can be competitive with different guns. Who gives a hoot if a guy is running a JP CTR 02 with a C-Mag and you are running an M1A with 20 rounds? You are not even in the same ball park. It's akin to shooting Single Stack and worrying about what the Open guy ahead of you is shooting. Who cares?! I don't gripe that the Open guy has 28 rounds and I have 8 in my Single Stack mag. I don't see why we need to throw a bone to 308 shooters and require only one hit on paper?? Also, my initial impression is that I am loathe to get out of the USPSA tradition of two shots on paper.

I think the major reason that people don't compete in Heavy Metal class is because of cost. Who wants to take a 308 at 15 bucks per 20 and go to a local hoser match? If you want to provide an incentive to shoot more 308, perform some sort of voodoo magic and miracle the price of ammo down. Also, if magazine capacity is a major issue, why don't the USPSA's industry sponsors work for us and engineer new manufactured high cap mags, and rifles for that matter, in 308. In the interim, continue the limit of 20 rounds for Heavy Metal and let them compete in their class.

Allowing a guy with great skill the chance to get through a course with only one shot on paper isn't a demonstration of skill so much as using a gimmick to get an overall win. I think seperate classes makes more sense:

Open

Limited-Irons and Optics

Heavy Metal/Battle Rifle-Irons and Optics

In conclusion, I like to shoot Heavy Metal and I do so because I like shooting 308 Rifles (LRP07, M1A, FAL), even if they cost alot to buy, are un-Godly expensive to shoot, have alot of recoil, have lower mag capacity, and are slower to reload.

That's my two cents,

Very Respectfully,

Billy Coleman

San Antonio, TX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent idea and one that should be explored further.

I have both the .308 and the .223. I will stick with the .223 only because I love to pull the trigger a lot :cheers: .

I would be interested to see some times put out by someone running first the .308 shooting one shot on target, then the .223 shooting two shots on target, shooting the same course of fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

<snip> What is wrong with the current USPSA scoring system?

Doesn't USPSA already reward 308 shooters with Major scoring?? <snip>

Billy Coleman

San Antonio, TX

The thread is related to IMGA scoring .. not USPSA.

To me the appeal of the one shot vs two shot per target is ... heads up scoring (factoring in the heavy recoil etc etc etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While USPSA may reward Major PF, IMGA doesn't do squat. Also at some matches there is an afwul lot of steel which doesn't reward major either. As for IMGA the only difference is adding the C zone to the one shot to neutralize. You can shoot 1 A and neutralize the target with a .223 now.

As far as getting the "USPSA Sponsors" to do anything, why. They are already giving away a ton of money. It costs a bunch more money to tool up to make a different style magazine and there just isn't enough interested in 30 round 308's to justify it. Besides there are already 30 round .308 mags available in the FN-Fal as well as the RRA .308 platform and I've seen a .308 C-Mag for the M1A at the last couple SHOT Shows (Although I'm not sure if that unholy beast is actually in production).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we do score the Az Police Games 3 gun this way. Az Police Games 3 gun is scored under IMGA rules but we don't have a Heavy Metal/He Man division and I wanted to make .308 rifles more competitive in the general match.

I'd be ok with it if this change was applied abroad in IMGA matches BUT it does not make .308s the dominant caliber. It just makes them more competitive in the Tactical and Open divisions. If this was done, I would not expect a massive rush towards .308s however. I'm sure some would bring out their .308s for tactical division but you would not seen many .308s in the winner's circle. Adoption of this rule may also hurt Heavy Metal class participation as people could stay in Tactical and avoid the silliness of all the different Heavy Metal/He Man Rules across the land.

This scoring does make sense under the theory of "target neutralization." A .308 into anyone's C zone will likely neutralize them (although I expect that's true with .223s albiet less so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a thought for running a Tactical match with only 2 divisions, Irons and Optics. I feel that it would not make the 308 supreme, but merely allow a more even playing field. I was also not thinking of "USPSA" sponsors, but manufacturers, tinkerers, etc. in general.

Billy C, as Merlin pointed out I was speaking of .308 in IMGA...........sorry if it confused you.

Trapr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trapr,

Your scoring plan does make for more competition between the two calibers. On one side, I can see the match being easier to run and score. On the other side, I am questioning why you want to push the two calibers to compete against each other. Are you trying to see which caliber choice is better? There is already divisions set up for the 308's to play together and compete with the disadvantages or advantages (which ever you want to look at it), of shooting the 308. The shooters that are using the 308 now, are doing so because there is a place to compete fairly, with no reason to complain about how many rounds one can carry or hit on target. We all know that a 308 can do things that a 223 can't, and vice-versa, but to try and come up with a special scoring format to make the 308 and the 223 head butt each other in competition is likely to start a "mine is better then yours" rules war. As everyone knows, USPSA rules have had the power factor rule since it's start, and to this day, major in rifle is not popular, mostly because the 223 has an advantage in scoring. Heavy Metal Division fixes this problem, and because of this division, more 308's have come out to play. I don't think you will ever get the 223 verses 308 differences to come together. Right now, under IMG rules, power factor for 223 is not controlled, where 308 is suppose to be controlled. Are you going to make 223 crono for minor? That will make a lot of shooters rethink there ammo choices. Just one question of many I can come up with. IMHO, keep the 223 and 308 separate. As a manufacture and tinkerer, I would have to say the 308 will always have it's own place, for what it is designed to do, and more technology will come as the 308's power is recognized for it's advantages in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My intention was strictly to see if there was interest in running a match with that type scoring. So as to do away with all the division differences, this was based solely on a rifle only match. One that would not recognize Open or HM or limited or tac optic, just IRONS and OPTICS.

Trapr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having seen this scoring system used, I believe it gives a distinct advantage to the 308. I initially didn't think there would be much of an advantage, but in practice, I think the 308 gains a lot in such scoring. This is magnified with paper targets at intermediate distances (40+ yards).

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the 6.8 can make 340PF it would be considered equal to the .308. I went with 340pf, because of the two numbers I keep hearing for the appropriate PF for a major rifle, 320 and 360, so I split the difference.

Again this is just a brainstorming idea for a possible match and a way to keep divisions as simple as possible and allow the most popular calibers to be on as equal ground as possible.

THIS IS NOT!!!!!! for an existing match.

Trapr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...