Why Not Have Weapon Transition Stages In Ipsc

[kurtm]

Pat:

We do tacti..... Oh yeah right, I won't. YES it's a 180! tighten up that tac sling next time! and control it!! Part of why I don't like tac slings....in matches! What we do especialy if it is unloaded is give ONE warning, Muzzle! If ignored, stage, D.Q.! If loaded, R.O. is close enough to stop shooter and then safety lecture and match D.Q. I have never seen it happen thus far, but it could!

I guess I don't see how keeping the 180 and transitions are mutualy exclusive. If on a tac sling the gun is pointed down if on a strap usually up, if unloaded it should be ok. If it swings around horizontal and points at the R.O. the shooter is violating the 180. If a gun is pointed down and the magazine is facing you ( assume "you" to mean R.O.) would you consider this down range? What if the sights were facing you, is that up range? Would it matter? It,s down and safe.

I guess I would look at it this way if it,s down and in a "safe cone" ( muzzle position say 3-4 feet of the shooter) then it is safe weather forward or backward of the 180. This is one of those "common sense" calls that Kyles guys use, World Championship uses, and we at RM3G use. Please remember we are not talking USPSA here. If USPSA were to do it they would need to redefine for rifle and shotgun...or as you have pointed out "table" the subject. I don't think chamber flags would negate the horizontal muzzle deal at all!

In a way USPSA has already set a "safety cone" precidense with allowing raked holsters, forward or backward tilt. The gun is down but not straight down and is pointed somewhere forward or back of the shooter wheather loaded or unloaded, kind of like a rifle or shotgun on a string...if you will... empty or with the safety on and loaded. I feel that holsters don't majicaly make pistol safe any more than I think slings make rifles and shotguns unsafe. As I said befor it is just a matter of degree. KURT

[rhino]

I guess I would look at it this way if it,s down and in a "safe cone" ( muzzle position say 3-4 feet of the shooter) then it is safe weather forward or backward of the 180. This is one of those "common sense" calls that Kyles guys use, World Championship uses, and we at RM3G use. Please remember we are not talking USPSA here. If USPSA were to do it they would need to redefine for rifle and shotgun...or as you have pointed out "table" the subject. I don't think chamber flags would negate the horizontal muzzle deal at all!

In a way USPSA has already set a "safety cone" precidense with allowing raked holsters, forward or backward tilt. The gun is down but not straight down and is pointed somewhere forward or back of the shooter wheather loaded or unloaded, kind of like a rifle or shotgun on a string...if you will... empty or with the safety on and loaded. I feel that holsters don't majicaly make pistol safe any more than I think slings make rifles and shotguns unsafe. As I said befor it is just a matter of degree. KURT

This is a really good idea, I think, and I was going to mention the parallel to holstered guns and the draw in USPSA/IPSC.

I've never done it in a match, but when I drop my AR on its bungee sling, it points down to a point about one foot left and half a foot behind my left foot. Is that inherently dangerous? Only if the RO is standing there!

[George]

My .00135 on the muzzle thing for long guns.

I have started to use a V-Tac sling on all of my long guns recently (replacing my beloved Turner's on all but my High Power rifle), and agree that the drop it into the Tac sling thing presents definite muzzle control problems in a 180 defined safety environment when doing anything but just plain standing there. IMHO, it is better to fully sling the long gun with muzzle up if you are going to adhere to any muzzle direction oriented criteria for safety calls. Even then the muzzle will occasionaly break an overhead 180 (by just a few degrees), but nothing worse than the established IPSC holster criteria specifies so precedent should allow this too, ie; it's slung = it's holstered. The three point setups that fix the long gun in some position but allow it to swing around are another issue altogether and are probably not workable in the 180 type of safety scenario without special effort on the shooters part.

If a V-Tac sling is used (highly recommended type of Tac sling), then a careful rotate into an "across the back" position should be required with the muzzle up as the final position. IMO, this provides a more secure carry position than a simple strap sling over one shoulder. When rotating into this type of position using a V-Tac sling, the shooter is required to turn himself as required to keep the arc the muzzle decribes pointed down range, and at some point the shooter will find himself facing uprange during this maneuver so it's not really Tactical" in that the shooter has to face away from his targets for a moment, but better safe than tactical in my book when it comes to the competition environment.

In a 180 defined situation, I think muzzle up has to be the standard for long gun retention because the ability to crawl/kneel/go prone/etc. are severely curtailed by adherence to any type of 180 ruling if you allow muzzle down carrying in any form.

Yeah, the muzzle down carry position is a real fast transition position, but it just won't work 100% of the time in a 180 defined safety environment. I have been living under the 180 umbrella since I started competitive shooting, so I guess I just plain view the competition world as being that way hard and fast (at least I now recognize the blinders I wear). Now the challenge I see ahead of me is to devise something for our next local 3 gun match that incorporates real "Transition" techniques, without busting our safety "precedents" wide open, or denying the gear challenged.

But first, I must inflict pain and suffering upon my local brethren at our upcoming rifle match next month with a long distance standards stage that will probably be my own demise too ;~)

Regards,

[RL17]

George:

The problem with conventional slings over the shoulder is, during a transition or while shooting the pistol, it can slide off your shoulder. Especially if there is any movement involved. Then it is pointing almost straight behind you. If you keep a tac sling short and control the muzzle with your week hand during movement, there is no reason to ever break the 180.

Pat

[glockster96]

Man, the timing of this thread is great. We are currently debating on whether to have "transition/multi-gun" stages at our club (as Pat can attest to.) For the time being we have switched back to one gun per stage, but hopefully in the near future we will be transitioning like the old days.

I think the comments about common sense and Kurt's suggestion on a safety cone are fantastic. This information will be great to present at our next club meeting.

[George]

The problem with conventional slings over the shoulder is, during a transition or while shooting the pistol, it can slide off your shoulder.

Hi Pat,

I absolutely agree that the simple strap sling is not as good an option as a Tac sling for not dropping a gun. I am not certain if Kurt was talking about using a strap sling over one shoulder tightly, or at a diagonal which is a little harder to get into. A Tac sling like the V-Tac allows the weapon to be slung diagonally across the back into an extremely secure position without too much ado as I metioned earlier. That type of position allows kneeling, crawling, climbing and so on with out breaking 180. That's the option I would prefer to see be used. Muzzle down is not good in a 180 defined situation. Ya gotta go to a "that's ok as long as you are safe thing, or use a cone of safety criterion as mention earlier by Mr. Miller.

Try doing a crawl, or going prone with a muzzle down slung long gun, and unless you really grab that muzzle and pull it in front of you, 180 gets broken rearwards very blatantly. Try doing anything described above with a pistol in hand, and you no longer have a hand left for the muzzle, and yourself.

BTW, I neglected to discuss clearing guns before slinging/holstering in transitional stuff. If it's hot transitions ya want, read no further. I suggest a standard for an "on the run" clearing method for getting a cold weapon holstered, or slung without involving an RO stop. Simply have the shooter drop mag, rack action, inspect as well as they care to then drop the hammer/striker with the trigger in a safe direction, get a click and you get to sling/holster and move on, get a bang and it's stop and go home. I know it involves emptying a gun in a useless direction with the potential for a tactically unsound shot to go into the berm (USPSA style), but it allows the shooter to perform the clearing at his pace, and penalizes failure immediately. If the RO doesn't see a well demonstrated clear, then call stop and check. You issue a re-shoot if all is OK, eventually folks will get real good at demonstrating this properly real fast to avoid getting a good run re-shot. Problem solved (IMO anyway).

Regards,

[Patrick Sweeney]

I'm thinking we might design a special stage at a future 3-gun match (with announcements for those who wish to try) and make up a special chamber flag.

Shoot the rifle to the transition box, then dump mag, rack chamber empty, insert chamber flag that is waiting, then drop on sling, draw and proceed.

I'll report the results.

[SGDM]

Let me ask you this...In most 3-Gun matches you are required to carry your pistol during rifle and shotgun stages. If I go into the prone position for a rifle or shotgun engagement, the pistol muzzle is breaking the 180. What is the difference? Use common sense and good RO's to keep everyone happy and safe. The reason USPSA/IPSC does not do multi-gun stages is because they are scared!

God Bless America!

[kellyn]

SGDM,

That's not exactly correct. In many "Tactical" 3 gun matches, shooters are required to retain their pistols at all times. That is not the case in USPSA or other matches with an open class. Going prone with my 9X23 in a safariland 012? I don't think so. It really isn't a problem for most tactical setups though. I don't have a problem with loaded pistols in good holsters when shooters are shooting prone with a rifle but I sure don't stand directly behind them either.

I think Pat's idea has some merit. It does add a non-shooting gun handling component to the stage. Pat, I take it you're giving up on the 180 for the unloaded slung rifle?

[George]

Just got back from the MGM Iron Man where we had an honest to God hot transition stage. We went back and forth from hot rifle to hot pistol on an assault course up a gully.

Way cool! I used my V-Tac sling and just dropped it in to my left side. I used my left hand to keep the muzzle from swinging backward when I moved. Some folks used Tac slings (all types were in evidence), some slung (carefully) over the shoulder with strap slings, and some just carried the rifle in their weak hand, and shot pistol stronghand.

It worked out well, and all were safe. No one knew ahead of time about this requirement (the stage was called the "Idaho Suprise"), and yet no safety issues were encountered due to unfamiliarity with doing this. Of course, the gun handling skills of the attendee's at this match are of a fairly high order to begin with.

Regards,

[Patrick Sweeney]

Kelly; yes, for that experimantal stage, with the safed rifle, we'd give up on the 180 rule, just to see what happens. If we aren't comfortable with it, then we'll try again. (Hey, if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be "research" now, would it?)

SGDM; We aren't scared, we're cautious. Any change has ramifications, as other rules have to adjusted and procedures squared with each other. If you just jump off the deep end to prove you aren't scared, one day you'll find it wasn't so deep. If we simply say "OK, if the rifle isn't loaded, then breaking the 180 doesn't matter" what do we do when someone breaks the 180 with an unloaded handgun? They'll arbitrate, we'll have a mess, and we'll be years setting it right.

As I've said before, and will say every time it comes up, justifying a change on the grounds "We've done it that way for years" is not the way to win a logical debate or make a point.

[kurtm]

Rules can also be akin to "we have always done it that way", they just were written down. They may have no more meaning than... we always do it that way. "Because it is a rule" is no more a tenable debate point than the previous. Because we always have done it that way, at least has the weight of experience behind it. KURT

[rkgsmith]

I started the thread trying to get some answers, but it appears I've stirred the pot. I realize the idea is have a challenging match that tests a shooters skill in not only shooting but weapon handling as well. Yes that is fun, but the skill level of those involved are not always up to par with the task. Live guns and nervous shooters, (even just one) can cause grave consequences for the shooters, match, and possiby club. Safety should reign supreme. After all it is just a match, something to do on the weekend for fun. Just my two cents say break the 180 and keep walking toward the car, your day is over.

[a-44978]

I am glad you started this thread,anyhooo.

New,beginner,nervous shooters can be scarey with a bb gun, this is why we all participate (not like my buddy did me)

The first time i did a transition was at kyle's match last year.I was nervous,sure,but the ro's were great and some other

shooters on my squad gave pointers so i learned.

beginner shooters doing movment,mag changes, and god forbid both can be very unnerving to watch somtimes(just pistol)

I wish i thought to record my first couple of stages(all of 2 years ago)

I'm but a little "b"lim now............snooore ,yea,yea get on with it

ok

I think kurt is right ,"thats the rule"is no valid argument.

Technology,tactics,and interest change with time and so should the rules

Or better yet hows about the "International Tactical 3-Gun Shooting Association"or"International Tactical 4-gun Shooting Association"(bolt gun being the next logical step,but thats another thread) hummmmmmmmm

Now If i could just those off shore accounts unfrozen,i could make the next NC match (DANMMMMMMIT)

[kurtm]

A44978:

I must disagree with you on a small point! The fourth gun should be BELT FED!!! What with some of these semi auto rifles being soo accurate I think bolts should be religated to the hunting field.KURT

[Patrick Sweeney]

You are correct, "because its the rules" as a blanket statement is not any better.

Perhaps a better explanation: THE RULES are an interlocking and self-supporting organization of procedures and principles. Like a building. Cut a hole at random to put in a door "because that building over there has one" can lead to problems.

We should experiment, but we should also pay attention to what effect those experiments have on the rest of the interlocking and self-supporting structure that is our rulebook.

As wth any organization, we are limited (simply by the laws of physics) by the decisions we hav emade, and the procedures we have established, in the past. Some good, some bad, some don't matter. And some don't matter now, but might in the future.

Particular example: the scoring software has to be tricked in order to accomodate combo stages in 3-gun. Why? Because when the developers wrote it, no one had a clue such a stage design would ever happen. Can we have the code re-written? yes, but only when we give the programmers a clear example of what we want the software to do, to handle, and to produce.

What do we want transition stages to do, to handle, and produce? And how do we either square it with the current tules, or re-write the rules to accomodate it?

[MattBurkett]

"What with some of these semi auto rifles being soo accurate I think bolts should be religated to the hunting field.KURT"

I am with you there. There are some current semi's that should replace the bolt guns. Doesn't really matter though, most people can't shoot anyway.

(Still trying to figure out the point in next weeks USPSA long range manually operated rifle Nationals that some stage design bozo thinks is a semi-auto. Check this out, start standing in the port arms position, go prone shoot two partial papers with 2 rounds each and then a steel target. Range unknown but probably 200-350 yards. Any guess what the par time is? 7 seconds! Moronic. Most people can't get prone and fire 2 rounds in 7 seconds. Someone thinks a bolt rifle is a pistol. Ohh, it is also the LONG RANGE blah, blah, blah with the farthest target being "out to 550+ yards". When the heck was 550 a long ways away? Now 800 yards is starting to get there!Anyway, had to bitch about that one somewhere. Oh yeah and Burris Low Powered scopes suck! )

Wow, I am going to go chrono my gun and sight in for the Area 5 and then sleeps some more.

[ErikW]

Hey Matt, Troy said here that par times were guesstimates and would likely be adjusted before the match(es). Whether he was talking about the 3GN, FGN, or Manual side match, or all, I don't know.

[George]

Here is Troys actual comment from the e-mail I received:

"Par times on the standards for both 3 Gun and Manual Rifle are just

estimates, and will be revised based on testing and actual setup of the

stages. I had to pick a number, and it's always better to go longer than to

shorten the time allowed. Actual par times will be announced at the

shooter's meeting Sunday morning. My apologies for any concerns this may

have caused."

Matt, I agree that 7 seconds for that drill with a bolt rifle is definitely a little ambitious. I know I can get a hit on a 300 yard (10") steel target in just under 4 seconds from standing with my bolt gun. Shot to shot with a 2 MOA hit at each end is right around 3.25 to 3.5 seconds average. So 3x4, plus 3 should be do-able for some folks (not me). My guess is that it ends up right around 15 seconds if the shots are 300 or under, just to keep it fairly difficult.

I wish I were going to the 3 gun Nat's this year. I had to withdraw because of a work conflict that just came up.

Good luck to ya Matt, kick some butt in Ill Noise, you rock!

Regards,

[MattBurkett]

I wish I were going to the 3 gun Nat's this year. I had to withdraw because of a work conflict that just came up.

Good luck to ya Matt, kick some butt in Ill Noise, you rock!

Bummer you can't make it. Should be interesting to see what they do with the MOR stages.

Thanks for the good luck wish. Everything is pretty set. Just trying to get used to a TA11F. Not sure if I like the chevron thing or not. The TA11 worked just fine under 250 and since the nationals is usually a pistol stages for the rifle that might be better to go with. Anyone got a spare ta11 that I could try out for a week?

Thanks.

[KyleL]

WOW........

You guys are out of control.

Rules, rules, rules....

Why do we sling long guns muzzle up? Why not muzzle down and in control.

Kurt I heard you did well at Jeffs match, sounded like fun. I wanted to go but I had to go climb Mt St Helens instead. Check that off the list of gut checks, oh, we were going for speed too.

ADIOS

Kyle

[kurtm]

Kyle:

I was the "champ" for 15 minutes, then Benny Hill and I pointed out that he was the real champ, making me the chump to the old grand man of 3-gun!!!! I owe a letter of comdenation to a shotshell company for the loss of first, and Benny owes the same company a "thank you" letter, but that is a whole different story best told with lots of beer under belt and with Benny present!

The quick answer as to why barrel up and not down is that we are not Austrailian. The true answer is quit with the RULES already. Up or down, if it's safe WHO CARES!!! If it ain't safe it's time to quit. I loved the laid back atmosphere of Jeff's match. Up or down, just be safe, and outstanding R.O.s AND ADULTS playing the game. KURT

[Patrick Sweeney]

One example of the inherent problems with the "laid back" approach. If instead of the 180 rule, we had a "too far back" rule, where you were unsafe if your muzzle pointed too far back.

And one RO feels that 170 is fine, but another feels 190 is fine.

If I go to 185 and get a warning but a pass from the RO who feels 190 is fine, then get DQ'd by the RO who feels that my 171 on his stage was over the line, I'm going to pitch a fit.

If everyone who shoots your matches feels as you do, and learned as you did, then you can all be very casual about the rules and how they are worded. (I learned much the same lesson in the martial arts. If everyone at a club or school learned from the same small set of instructors, their faults were their students faults. Observe the students and you can defeat the instructor.)

Let an outsider come in who is looking for a competitive advantage, and who doesn't know all the unwritten definitions and exceptions, and you have the recipe for at least hard feelings, and maybe disaster.

You want muzzle down carry, fine. Define it and describe when it isn't safe, and we're in. But don't get upset when someone who hasn't done it asks for a clarification. And don't DQ the first newbie who breaks the mutually understood but not written down exceptions, or you'll never see him or his friends again.

I've been in IPSC almost from the beginning, and I've seen the evolution of the rules all along. Believe me, the lawyer/legal model works a lot better than the "We'll re-write it and refine it after we DQ someone" model. I've seen and done both.

[kurtm]

Pat:

I din't mean to imply that Jeff's R.O.s didn't enforce the 180 or any of the other safety rules, They did! what I was saying was they were not safety gestapo types, waiting to gleefully pounce in a loud and abrasive manner ( read down right rude ) just because they have a little R.O. power. The R.O.s you describe should have been thrown down the creek bank by all shooters present, and then a new batch of R.O.s should have been obtained. It befuddles me as to why we put up with these types, and smooth over this rude, abrasive attitude with " well the rules say", while ignoring the attitude brough to the range by these types of R.O.s.......Oops thread drift!! KURT

[KyleL]

Patrick,

We must further explain what we mean by laid back.

The RO's at my match are there to get you safely throught the stages. They will tell you where the 180 is. At our match we will set up stages in such a way that the 180 will need to be pointed out.

Our RO's are shooters first, they understand and their job is safety, not to be an RO jerk, like we all have experienced before.

We have had several gamers show up to our match, gaming is fine. Now if you go away from the intent, we will have a problem. I know, I know, how do you know what my intent is. Well you know...... If ypou don't you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun.

We are not casual about our rules, we enforce our lack of rules very diligently. Common sense is applied, and best of all I am King.... Do I want to see other matches like ours, yes, do I want to see more rules. NO

Your rules are for the lowest common denominator, ours are not.

I just want to shoot...... and have fun............

God Bless the USA!!!!!!!!!!

KyleL