Law Enforcement Tactical 3 Gun

[Alaskapopo]

As for the civilian vs LEO thing. I think its good to have a LEO match mostly because it is not good for LEO's to have their ass handed to them by some dentist who likes to shoot. It makes it so they don't want to come back. If they get beat by other cops its not a big deal. Messed up I know but cops are type A personalities.

[sbmd]

We have set the next match at Bear Creek Tactical located in Stockton, Missouri. I know we are pushing time here but things were just finalized several days ago. Attached you will find a match entry. You can give us a call to register. We are looking at 7 courses of fire right around 205 rounds combined. I promise you that the stages will be all round fun and a good test in all areas.

If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me at lhouck@nrahq.org

Larry

Bear_Creek_TPC_Announcement___Registration___6_26_2008.pdf

[Charles Bond]

As for the civilian vs LEO thing. I think its good to have a LEO match mostly because it is not good for LEO's to have their ass handed to them by some dentist who likes to shoot. It makes it so they don't want to come back. If they get beat by other cops its not a big deal. Messed up I know but cops are type A personalities.

The dirty littls secret is that the NRA believes that only Military and Law Enforcement should be shooting tactical 3 gun matches. This is a far cry from the founding mission of the NRA to make civilians better marksmen before they entered military service.

Based on my experience in sponsoring a free match for law enforement that can with lunch, a shirt, and prizes, only those members of law enforcement that want to shoot matches or want to shoot better show up. As such the matches end up being a benefit to those membes who are already shooting matches or would shoot matches but as to overall law enforcement, they lack significance.

[BigHamp]

As for the civilian vs LEO thing. I think its good to have a LEO match mostly because it is not good for LEO's to have their ass handed to them by some dentist who likes to shoot. It makes it so they don't want to come back. If they get beat by other cops its not a big deal. Messed up I know but cops are type A personalities.

The dirty littls secret is that the NRA believes that only Military and Law Enforcement should be shooting tactical 3 gun matches. This is a far cry from the founding mission of the NRA to make civilians better marksmen before they entered military service.

Based on my experience in sponsoring a free match for law enforement that can with lunch, a shirt, and prizes, only those members of law enforcement that want to shoot matches or want to shoot better show up. As such the matches end up being a benefit to those membes who are already shooting matches or would shoot matches but as to overall law enforcement, they lack significance.

Not even CLOSE to true! The NRA rolled the LE program out first because of a number of reasons. Not sure who you are using as sources but tell them I said they are WRONG. The NRA is supporting 3-Gun in the civilian sector as evidenced by their major match support of the FB3G, and other initiatives being drafted.

I think chocolate ice cream is the best, unfortunately I believe Bryers is stifling production of Chocolate to boost sales of Vanilla. See how this statement is obviously MY opinion.

Who told you this secret?

Aaron Hampton

MD FB3G

[HPD SRT]

Don't forget us D.O.E. guys. We have a multi-million dollar range complex here at Hanford Patrol that I'm sure could host something like that. Sounds like fun too!

[Chuck Anderson]

As for the civilian vs LEO thing. I think its good to have a LEO match mostly because it is not good for LEO's to have their ass handed to them by some dentist who likes to shoot. It makes it so they don't want to come back. If they get beat by other cops its not a big deal. Messed up I know but cops are type A personalities.

The dirty littls secret is that the NRA believes that only Military and Law Enforcement should be shooting tactical 3 gun matches. This is a far cry from the founding mission of the NRA to make civilians better marksmen before they entered military service.

Based on my experience in sponsoring a free match for law enforement that can with lunch, a shirt, and prizes, only those members of law enforcement that want to shoot matches or want to shoot better show up. As such the matches end up being a benefit to those membes who are already shooting matches or would shoot matches but as to overall law enforcement, they lack significance.

I'm going to try to keep as much sarcasm as I can out of this. You're basing your opinion on one whole match? Seriously? We used to hold a three gun match for LE in the Portland Area. It used to fill up with well over 100 LE shooters from the area. Most of these folks didn't shoot during the rest of the year. Some shot that match for the first time and became much more involved in the shooting sports. I was one of them. Without that first LE 3-Gun match I'm not sure I would be shooting competetively today.

The NRA has come a long way in the last couple years. 10 years ago I doubt the NRA though LE needed to be taught tactics. The NRA instructor course was pretty widely (at least in my area) considered a joke. Recently they've come around and are actually teaching useful stuff. I think the fact that the NRA thought enough about it hire people to promote the program is a good sign. I've got the Host form sitting on my desk to run one of these next year. I'm betting we have enough success to make it a worthwile program.

[spd522]

As for the civilian vs LEO thing. I think its good to have a LEO match mostly because it is not good for LEO's to have their ass handed to them by some dentist who likes to shoot. It makes it so they don't want to come back. If they get beat by other cops its not a big deal. Messed up I know but cops are type A personalities.

The dirty littls secret is that the NRA believes that only Military and Law Enforcement should be shooting tactical 3 gun matches. This is a far cry from the founding mission of the NRA to make civilians better marksmen before they entered military service.

Based on my experience in sponsoring a free match for law enforement that can with lunch, a shirt, and prizes, only those members of law enforcement that want to shoot matches or want to shoot better show up. As such the matches end up being a benefit to those membes who are already shooting matches or would shoot matches but as to overall law enforcement, they lack significance.

The ego thing is true in some cases. However, most of the fellow officers I have tried to coax into the games decline due to 1) not really into shooting 2) rather spend time with family 3) don't want to spend the money for entry, travel, and ammo. I shoot regularly but only about 3 officers from my former dept of 300 ever join me. Even for the MO Police Olympics, only about a dozen show up for Bullseye, PPC, and Combat shooting each year. My experience is the average officer would be a low "C" at a USPSA match. Most departmental training (sans SWAT) isn't much high speed low drag. It's controlled and tactical so the officers are usually out of their comfort zone in hoser mode. I tried to change some of that before I retired but got grounded by administration.

NRA believes only law/military should shoot 3 gun???

For real ???

Edited July 3, 2008 by spd522

[sbmd]

Wow, Charles Bond.....of all people that would make a comment such as yours......

Tactical is only a title used. We do not score, grade or otherwise promote tactics. It would be too hard to regulate or enforce. Ever shoot IDPA or SO at an IDPA match. We just don't know what an agency is teaching as far as tactics.

So what do we do, we try to force shooters into unusual positions using barricades and shooting boxes. We let the shooter determine how they are going to shoot the course of fire. The only really tactical item we do enforce is you can not leave cover with an empty firearm. However we consider one round in the chamber loaded. However what we really want to push is the familiarity with their weapons systems, fundamentals and target acquisition.

I hope this helps explain some things for those out there with enquiring minds.

[scirocco38s]

As for the civilian vs LEO thing. I think its good to have a LEO match mostly because it is not good for LEO's to have their ass handed to them by some dentist who likes to shoot. It makes it so they don't want to come back. If they get beat by other cops its not a big deal. Messed up I know but cops are type A personalities.

The dirty littls secret is that the NRA believes that only Military and Law Enforcement should be shooting tactical 3 gun matches. This is a far cry from the founding mission of the NRA to make civilians better marksmen before they entered military service.

Based on my experience in sponsoring a free match for law enforement that can with lunch, a shirt, and prizes, only those members of law enforcement that want to shoot matches or want to shoot better show up. As such the matches end up being a benefit to those membes who are already shooting matches or would shoot matches but as to overall law enforcement, they lack significance.

The ego thing is true in some cases. However, most of the fellow officers I have tried to coax into the games decline due to 1) not really into shooting 2) rather spend time with family 3) don't want to spend the money for entry, travel, and ammo. I shoot regularly but only about 3 officers from my former dept of 300 ever join me. Even for the MO Police Olympics, only about a dozen show up for Bullseye, PPC, and Combat shooting each year. My experience is the average officer would be a low "C" at a USPSA match. Most departmental training (sans SWAT) isn't much high speed low drag. It's controlled and tactical so the officers are usually out of their comfort zone in hoser mode. I tried to change some of that before I retired but got grounded by administration.

NRA believes only law/military should shoot 3 gun???

For real ???

I have plenty of LEO at my match as well as the surrounding matches be they uspsa/idpa/3-gun/or whatever. Le/Military people who want to shoot better find the time as well as the finances to shoot. For most of them it is also a hobby as much as staying proficient with the weapon. We have on occasion a squad or group show up and when they get beat they never come back, but the ones who do are generally hooked into the game. Most LE/Military are as competitive as any group of males you will encounter, and would rather loose to the National or world Champion than beat joe nobody that just got started. It is just in most peoples blood.

As for they arent in their comfort zone in a hoser match, if they are comfortable at all shooting a weapon(and some police arent) they will take the challenge and start practicing. Those who dont, didnt join the force for being around guns they do it for a different reason.

We have had guys who are swat , that would not shoot a uspsa match for fear not that they would be beat but that it would affect their tactics and thinking, but soon after shooting 1 or 2 matches they find that it enhances their abilities, and doesnt alter them.

Overall, I think the idea of encouraging them to shoot the match is good, but I also think that they should see what civilians, that do this as a hobby can do because as bad as some of the bad guys and thugs out there shoot, they are every once in a while come across 1 that can.

I would think you could limit the number of non-LE?Mil shooters to say 25-30% of the total shooters with those getting lower priority than the leo's. Then there would be some talk between the shooters and exchange of ideas and it would break down a few more walls that the leo's have toward the shooting world and civilians in general. But to distinctly shut out al civies unless they work the match and even then they cant shoot for score, I can see where some resentment/hostility could be generated by that.

I am glad that the NRA is sponsoring this and is getting out there to try and promote the shooting sports, and I hope they will continue and maybe include other sports that theuy dont now.

I will say that I am glad that most of the matches I shoot and am involved in are shot by leo's, In some way shape or form every match I shoot has at least 10% of the shooters from leo/military, but I may just be in an area that is at the top of the bell curve.

Larry, there is no correct answer that will satisfy the shooting group as a whole so you will just have to do what you can to make this work for you and the NRA and the rest of us will have to either support it or not.

Edited July 4, 2008 by scirocco38s

[Chuck Anderson]

I will say there was a recent three gun match that was billed as LE only. When the match director didn't get enough entries he opened it up to the local IPSC crew. I'm still hearing complaints about this. From LE shooters that are also IPSC shooters. They were ticked off when they thought it would only be cops they were competing against. It's one match (well maybe five or six nationwide) does it really affect anyone? If you are so mad that you don't want to have anything to do with it...don't. I just really don't see the problem.

[scirocco38s]

I will say there was a recent three gun match that was billed as LE only. When the match director didn't get enough entries he opened it up to the local IPSC crew. I'm still hearing complaints about this. From LE shooters that are also IPSC shooters. They were ticked off when they thought it would only be cops they were competing against. It's one match (well maybe five or six nationwide) does it really affect anyone? If you are so mad that you don't want to have anything to do with it...don't. I just really don't see the problem.

And what are the complaints? If the complaints are that they got beat by a bunch of civies then they should reevaluate the reasons for being there. Sounds like if they didnt open it up to more shooters, there wouldnt have been a match. And who was the complainers? if it was the occasional leo's then they now have a benchmark to work toward.

[spd522]

I have plenty of LEO at my match as well as the surrounding matches be they uspsa/idpa/3-gun/or whatever. Le/Military people who want to shoot better find the time as well as the finances to shoot. For most of them it is also a hobby as much as staying proficient with the weapon. We have on occasion a squad or group show up and when they get beat they never come back, but the ones who do are generally hooked into the game. Most LE/Military are as competitive as any group of males you will encounter, and would rather loose to the National or world Champion than beat joe nobody that just got started. It is just in most peoples blood.

As for they arent in their comfort zone in a hoser match, if they are comfortable at all shooting a weapon(and some police arent) they will take the challenge and start practicing. Those who dont, didnt join the force for being around guns they do it for a different reason.

We have had guys who are swat , that would not shoot a uspsa match for fear not that they would be beat but that it would affect their tactics and thinking, but soon after shooting 1 or 2 matches they find that it enhances their abilities, and doesnt alter them.

Overall, I think the idea of encouraging them to shoot the match is good, but I also think that they should see what civilians, that do this as a hobby can do because as bad as some of the bad guys and thugs out there shoot, they are every once in a while come across 1 that can.

I would think you could limit the number of non-LE?Mil shooters to say 25-30% of the total shooters with those getting lower priority than the leo's. Then there would be some talk between the shooters and exchange of ideas and it would break down a few more walls that the leo's have toward the shooting world and civilians in general. But to distinctly shut out al civies unless they work the match and even then they cant shoot for score, I can see where some resentment/hostility could be generated by that.

I am glad that the NRA is sponsoring this and is getting out there to try and promote the shooting sports, and I hope they will continue and maybe include other sports that theuy dont now.

I will say that I am glad that most of the matches I shoot and am involved in are shot by leo's, In some way shape or form every match I shoot has at least 10% of the shooters from leo/military, but I may just be in an area that is at the top of the bell curve.

Larry, there is no correct answer that will satisfy the shooting group as a whole so you will just have to do what you can to make this work for you and the NRA and the rest of us will have to either support it or not.

You are lucky in that you have that much positive response from LE. In this region, many of the officers are happy to leave their target shooting experience to the range qualifications where they know they can always shoot 100%. When I taught the in-service and academy, many liked some of the USPSA or even IDPA type scenerios I would set up that made them think and shoot. They were bored with the typical 6 standing barricade, 6 weak side barricade, 6 kneeling crap that was such a standard of training for so long. But then there were those that liked that

familiar setting and didn't want to have to actually run and gun. (Like might happen on the street) And then those in charge that had their head in a cave and didn't think competitive shooting did anything to benefit street cops.

Unfortunately, many believe that since they carry a gun on duty, they should be better with it than the average Joe. They also want the pubic to have that impression. So getting dusted at a local match by regular civilians burst some bubbles. Instead of watching and learning from those that are really good at it, many shy away. Put them in a group of fellow LE to shoot and they don't seem to care about their place of finish as much. They hope they do well but really hope that the guy who shreds the COF will be their backup on a call that goes bad.

I agree with some thinking that competition would mess with their reality thinking on the job. I also had the same problem with guys not wanting to play fast pitch because the swing would mess with their golf game. I found just the opposite happened in that the stress, fast reactions, and motor skills needed in competition were beneficial to life on the street.

I am glad to see LE only shoots. And I hope they are successful. It's the only way some LE will attend these things. It may sway them into venturing out into the world and trying other forms of competition without resenting the talent that will be at them. They will find themselves welcomed into the new hobby. And hopefully, LE and civilians can learn something and have a greater respect for each other.

Craig

[Chuck Anderson]

I will say there was a recent three gun match that was billed as LE only. When the match director didn't get enough entries he opened it up to the local IPSC crew. I'm still hearing complaints about this. From LE shooters that are also IPSC shooters. They were ticked off when they thought it would only be cops they were competing against. It's one match (well maybe five or six nationwide) does it really affect anyone? If you are so mad that you don't want to have anything to do with it...don't. I just really don't see the problem.

And what are the complaints? If the complaints are that they got beat by a bunch of civies then they should reevaluate the reasons for being there. Sounds like if they didnt open it up to more shooters, there wouldnt have been a match. And who was the complainers? if it was the occasional leo's then they now have a benchmark to work toward.

Actually they were both reasonably active practical shooters, one was a B class shooter, the other was a GM. The complaining come from the fact that it was billed as a LE match. i.e. duty gun/gear etc. When they got there a bunch of the local IPSC shooters showed up with race gear. I'd be pissed as well. If you're going to advertise that a match will be something you better make sure that it is.

[scirocco38s]

I will say there was a recent three gun match that was billed as LE only. When the match director didn't get enough entries he opened it up to the local IPSC crew. I'm still hearing complaints about this. From LE shooters that are also IPSC shooters. They were ticked off when they thought it would only be cops they were competing against. It's one match (well maybe five or six nationwide) does it really affect anyone? If you are so mad that you don't want to have anything to do with it...don't. I just really don't see the problem.

And what are the complaints? If the complaints are that they got beat by a bunch of civies then they should reevaluate the reasons for being there. Sounds like if they didnt open it up to more shooters, there wouldnt have been a match. And who was the complainers? if it was the occasional leo's then they now have a benchmark to work toward.

Actually they were both reasonably active practical shooters, one was a B class shooter, the other was a GM. The complaining come from the fact that it was billed as a LE match. i.e. duty gun/gear etc. When they got there a bunch of the local IPSC shooters showed up with race gear. I'd be pissed as well. If you're going to advertise that a match will be something you better make sure that it is.

OK, I can understand there complaining in 1 respect, but if the B class and GM have done their homework, they would still be more than competitive. So in that respect, I would say that they dont have any room to complain. I know of at least 2 different GM's that are going to beat us regardless of what equipment they use. I could mandate that they only use tactical gear and we could use whatever we wanted and the rest are still goiong to loose. I wouldnt ever want to use the equipment as an excuse, even if I lost by 2 match points, because there is always somewhere you could have made it up.

[spd522]

Actually they were both reasonably active practical shooters, one was a B class shooter, the other was a GM. The complaining come from the fact that it was billed as a LE match. i.e. duty gun/gear etc. When they got there a bunch of the local IPSC shooters showed up with race gear. I'd be pissed as well. If you're going to advertise that a match will be something you better make sure that it is.

I would be upset too. There is a difference of drawing from a retention holster and pulling mags from covered pouches vs USPSA gear. I know I would not only shoot a different gun in a different caliber than what I carried on duty (SIG P220-45ACP), I would use a different holster and mag pouches also if it was opened up to non-duty gear. Yes there will be some GM shooters that will still win no matter what, but changing the rules without advising those who entered under the old rules sucked.

I used to shoot with a group of officers from another department that were very good and generally won or took top places in LE matches. When the rules required retention covers over the mag pouches, they would use open top ones with a thin piece of velcro over the top. The mag could be grabbed in the same manner as if the velcro wasn't there as the velcro was so slight, it came right off. It made no difference it being there other than satisfy the rule for a retention strap or cover. The guys were just gamers and with the skill level they had, they didn't need to. Still there are some that take advantage of every little thing.

Maybe that alone isn't a legitimate reason for winning or losing, but it isn't right and definately didn't keep everyone on the same playing field as the match was promoted.

Craig

[Alan Meek]

self deleted

Edited July 5, 2008 by Alan Meek

[Charles Bond]

I am not dismissing the NRA matches in any form. That the NRA has all of the sudden decided that they want to get into any real tactial shooting is good. That they decided to limit it to two groups is a failure to see what is really going on in the sport. But let's face it Larry, they sure waited long enough to do it but I have every confidence that you will help them to understand they need to reach our further than to just the law enforcement and military communities.

Guys, give me all the heat you desire about my post as to who the NRA beieves "should" be shooting 3 gun but I stand by the comment that reflects one that was made to me from way up the food chain at NRA HQ. Do not feel that is in any way "unique" or new. Talk to the guys at the USPSA club in Tallahassee, FL who are prohibited by their club from shooting and moving because the club deems it "unsafe". Who is the president of this club and the main roadblock? Non other than a former NRA President.

[Carlos]

I am not dismissing the NRA matches in any form. That the NRA has all of the sudden decided that they want to get into any real tactial shooting is good. That they decided to limit it to two groups is a failure to see what is really going on in the sport. But let's face it Larry, they sure waited long enough to do it but I have every confidence that you will help them to understand they need to reach our further than to just the law enforcement and military communities.

Guys, give me all the heat you desire about my post as to who the NRA beieves "should" be shooting 3 gun but I stand by the comment that reflects one that was made to me from way up the food chain at NRA HQ. Do not feel that is in any way "unique" or new. Talk to the guys at the USPSA club in Tallahassee, FL who are prohibited by their club from shooting and moving because the club deems it "unsafe". Who is the president of this club and the main roadblock? Non other than a former NRA President.

Didn't we resolve the issue of the NRA initially limiting these shoots to LEO, military, and volunteer staff on pages 1 & 2 of this thread? Need we be reminded that the person behind this venture is not only USPSA's former Juniors Program coordinator, but also the person behind the long-successful Summer Blast? Larry's credentials, dedication to the sport, and his intent are above question in my opinion. As for the NRA, the past is best left alone. What matters now (to us all) is that the NRA DOES seems to be moving in the right direction. How for example? Their premier facility in Ratton, NM, has been host to 3gun/multigun shoots. They added "Personal Protection - OUTSIDE the home" to their course offerings. They eventually came around on the Heller case. And most relevant to this thread, they are started down the right path with LET3Gun (even if the initial shoots are limited - for now). Anyone else think some patience is called for here?

If the NRA is now moving in the right direction, what benefit is there to anyone's negative criticism based on the NRA's past?

Can we please return to constructive, specific discussions about this year's remaining shoots? Thanks in advance. d

[LChico]

I am not dismissing the NRA matches in any form. That the NRA has all of the sudden decided that they want to get into any real tactial shooting is good. That they decided to limit it to two groups is a failure to see what is really going on in the sport. But let's face it Larry, they sure waited long enough to do it but I have every confidence that you will help them to understand they need to reach our further than to just the law enforcement and military communities.

Guys, give me all the heat you desire about my post as to who the NRA beieves "should" be shooting 3 gun but I stand by the comment that reflects one that was made to me from way up the food chain at NRA HQ. Do not feel that is in any way "unique" or new. Talk to the guys at the USPSA club in Tallahassee, FL who are prohibited by their club from shooting and moving because the club deems it "unsafe". Who is the president of this club and the main roadblock? Non other than a former NRA President.

Didn't we resolve the issue of the NRA initially limiting these shoots to LEO, military, and volunteer staff on pages 1 & 2 of this thread? Need we be reminded that the person behind this venture is not only USPSA's former Juniors Program coordinator, but also the person behind the long-successful Summer Blast? Larry's credentials, dedication to the sport, and his intent are above question in my opinion. As for the NRA, the past is best left alone. What matters now (to us all) is that the NRA DOES seems to be moving in the right direction. How for example? Their premier facility in Ratton, NM, has been host to 3gun/multigun shoots. They added "Personal Protection - OUTSIDE the home" to their course offerings. They eventually came around on the Heller case. And most relevant to this thread, they are started down the right path with LET3Gun (even if the initial shoots are limited - for now). Anyone else think some patience is called for here?

If the NRA is now moving in the right direction, what benefit is there to anyone's negative criticism based on the NRA's past?

Can we please return to constructive, specific discussions about this year's remaining shoots? Thanks in advance. d

Please allow one more quick thread drift to set the record straight. Larry works for the Law Enforcement Division of the NRA. The focus in the past has been training & education. The fact that they now recognize that competitive matches can combine training & education with sport is a VERY positive step. They felt strongly enough about it to create Larry's position.

The Competitive Shooting Division has definitely recognized the importance of civilian shooters in 3 Gun competition. They were at Ft Benning in 2007 as sponsors. They were at the 2008 Blue Ridge match. They have been in contact with the match directors of most major 3 gun matches. I will echo your comment that "the NRA is now moving in the right direction."

Linda Chico (L-2035)

2008 Ft Benning 3 Gun Statistician

[scirocco38s]

I am not dismissing the NRA matches in any form. That the NRA has all of the sudden decided that they want to get into any real tactial shooting is good. That they decided to limit it to two groups is a failure to see what is really going on in the sport. But let's face it Larry, they sure waited long enough to do it but I have every confidence that you will help them to understand they need to reach our further than to just the law enforcement and military communities.

Guys, give me all the heat you desire about my post as to who the NRA beieves "should" be shooting 3 gun but I stand by the comment that reflects one that was made to me from way up the food chain at NRA HQ. Do not feel that is in any way "unique" or new. Talk to the guys at the USPSA club in Tallahassee, FL who are prohibited by their club from shooting and moving because the club deems it "unsafe". Who is the president of this club and the main roadblock? Non other than a former NRA President.

Didn't we resolve the issue of the NRA initially limiting these shoots to LEO, military, and volunteer staff on pages 1 & 2 of this thread? Need we be reminded that the person behind this venture is not only USPSA's former Juniors Program coordinator, but also the person behind the long-successful Summer Blast? Larry's credentials, dedication to the sport, and his intent are above question in my opinion. As for the NRA, the past is best left alone. What matters now (to us all) is that the NRA DOES seems to be moving in the right direction. How for example? Their premier facility in Ratton, NM, has been host to 3gun/multigun shoots. They added "Personal Protection - OUTSIDE the home" to their course offerings. They eventually came around on the Heller case. And most relevant to this thread, they are started down the right path with LET3Gun (even if the initial shoots are limited - for now). Anyone else think some patience is called for here?

If the NRA is now moving in the right direction, what benefit is there to anyone's negative criticism based on the NRA's past?

Can we please return to constructive, specific discussions about this year's remaining shoots? Thanks in advance. d

Those who ignore,and want to forget the past are doomed to see it repeated. I cant remember who said it, but it fits this situation as good as it fits any other. Carlos, I am sure that Larry will do everything possible to make it open as soon as possible to civies, but the track record is there and cant be ignord.

Construtive critiscism is fine but bear in mind that what is going on with this topic, is a trend for alot of clubs that have uspsa affiliation. My club is heavily attached to the NRA tit, and as such is constantly trying to get more grants and do more nra sponsored programs. The worst side effect is the oversight that is attached with it. I can tell you first hand that if the uspsa program at my club didnt make as much money as it does,(more than all the others combined, bullseye, smallbore,highpower,skeet,trap,and cowboy) that it wouldnt exisit as there are those who think just the same way as the nra. I can also tell you of other clubs in my area that want to do uspsa but cannot because of the boards fo those clubs are full of old school shotgunners and people who are against the action shooting and use the nra as examples.

If there is a faction within the nra that is starting to support the shooting sports such as uspsa, they are small and quiet. Thee nra only supports us because it satisfies a small principle in not giving in to the anti-gun groups. They are not a friend of the action shooting sports at all, in fact the only group they are somewhat friendly to is Bianchi, skeet and trap.

If in the future the nra changes its policies and truly supports our sport then my opinion of them will change. I will support them to a point, but I always watch them. Your outlook on this is the same as many in our society takes, and that is what is wrong with america. I want the nra to know I dont approve of leo only matches, especially if money I paid in membership was used for it. If the leo want to have a match for their people only, then they need to sponsor, advertise, and get all the support staff on their own, then the civies wont know about it, and they wont realize they were excluded from it.

[Charles Bond]

To be completely clear, NRA and the rest of us are extemely lucky to have Larry running anything. He is extremely decidicated to this sport and has more than paid his dues. He and I go back a good ways and I am sure that he is going to do well in his new role. But Larry will be the first to tell you he carries out the policies of his emlployer and does not draft them. Does he have imput? I sure hope so.

I am tickled to death that NRA is stepping up to sponsor a few matches. This is a step in the right direction but it is a baby step. Given that they have refused for years to even pass on information to their members about the action shooting matches, despite the fact it would cost them nothing, they still have a long ways to go.

Am I being overly criticial of the NRA? I do not think so and since I am a life member and have funded 3 others, I feel entitled to complain. Unless and until we get some members of the BOD who are active shooters, as opposed to folks who just shoot in movies or used to do so, we are not going to see much change. Getting some names like Todd Jarrett, Johm Amidon, and Linda Chico on the ballot for the NRA BOD would make a real difference. It would not matter whether they were elected of not (but would it not be great if they were?). The mere fact that they were on the ballot would force the oganizaiton to pay more attention to the active shooting culture they have too long ignored.

[spd522]

Match is in 2 weeks in Stockton, MO. I will be there along with some Springfield local LE. Anyone else making the trip?

Craig

Edited July 27, 2008 by spd522

[dvc40jim]

I participated in the Stockton event this past weekend and I think it went very well. It was well organized and ran in a fairly timely manner.

They have a few kinks to work out with regard to conduct on the range (safety wise). Stage design with regard to "new shooters". Perhaps some work with what will likely have to remain the "Local RO's" but overall it was a good event.

The squad I was on had 2 Police Officers who had never competed at any firearm sport or event. I was pretty amazed that a 3 gun would be the first one! I saw lots of National Guard guys who will for sure benefit from just the safe weapon handling example they saw and the shooting skills they now know they need to work on (always a deployment on the horizon).

The NRA folks did not over make it a political event or use it as an overt sales pitch of any kind. The rules are unique and like all things might need tweaking here and there and the RO's will have to learn how to apply them in every instance... but I think that all of the guys involved will find themselves getting out to another event like it.

They had a really nice prize table (especially considering the entry fee).

I would encourage those folks who can't participate otherwise to consider RO'ing if an event is close by. It's a good chance to shoot a 3 gun and put your spin on why new folks should come out to an IPSC match or another 3 gun event at your local club.

[spd522]

I shot the match and have to agree with Jim on what was right and what needs some attention.

The rules were not consistant stage to stage such as how many rounds are allowed in the shotgun at the start. I started asking each stage since it varied.

Also, a lot of serious safety issues were seen. I was downrange taping targets when the RO called "Standby" for the next shooter. I yelled and ran out to find the shooter loaded and ready for the beep. Also, there was a lot of 180 issues, including shooters turning uprange with loaded shotguns to move to the next shooting position. In any other shooting discipline, that would be a DQ.

And there were a few issues with the scorer unsure how to score targets and penalties. That seemed to improve as the match went on. Luckily my squad had 3 shooters who shoot a lot of USPSA, IDPA, and NRA so we were able to help clear things up the few times it came up.

But the stages were fun and challenging. It shows you need to know your guns and count rounds fired.

And I really liked the scoring method that hammered you for poor accuracy. The first stage I shot in hose mode with a bunch of "C" and "D" hits broke me of that crap real quick. It made you slow down and get good hits.

There was a good turnout for such short notice for the match. And everyone seemed to have a good time. Plus, as Jim said, for the entry fee this match had an great prize table.

I am glad the NRA started this program and hope it keeps growing.

Craig

[Alaskapopo]

Actually they were both reasonably active practical shooters, one was a B class shooter, the other was a GM. The complaining come from the fact that it was billed as a LE match. i.e. duty gun/gear etc. When they got there a bunch of the local IPSC shooters showed up with race gear. I'd be pissed as well. If you're going to advertise that a match will be something you better make sure that it is.

I would be upset too. There is a difference of drawing from a retention holster and pulling mags from covered pouches vs USPSA gear. I know I would not only shoot a different gun in a different caliber than what I carried on duty (SIG P220-45ACP), I would use a different holster and mag pouches also if it was opened up to non-duty gear. Yes there will be some GM shooters that will still win no matter what, but changing the rules without advising those who entered under the old rules sucked.

I used to shoot with a group of officers from another department that were very good and generally won or took top places in LE matches. When the rules required retention covers over the mag pouches, they would use open top ones with a thin piece of velcro over the top. The mag could be grabbed in the same manner as if the velcro wasn't there as the velcro was so slight, it came right off. It made no difference it being there other than satisfy the rule for a retention strap or cover. The guys were just gamers and with the skill level they had, they didn't need to. Still there are some that take advantage of every little thing.

Maybe that alone isn't a legitimate reason for winning or losing, but it isn't right and definately didn't keep everyone on the same playing field as the match was promoted.

Craig

I use a 6280 as a duty rig and its very fast and its still a double retention holster. I as most cops in my state use open double vertical mag pouches. I never liked the covered ones. I do have one single mag pouch that is covered for retention reasons like fights where all your gear goes flying. I just recently got done with the local three gun match I host. Now this is a small match with only 14 people this year. But the top 2 shooters were LEO's. Although I have to say that the top shooter was a IDPA 5 gun master before he was ever hired with ICE. Anyway my point was if the gear you are using is slowing you down that much its time to re evaluate using that gear. If its department mandated do what you can to get that changed. One thing nice about LEO matches is we run hot ranges. So no training conflicts like in a standard USPSA and IDPA match with the stupid cold range rule. But that is another thread.

Pat

Edited August 19, 2008 by Alaskapopo