NRA wants to Sanction Multi-gun

[BillL223]

I just received my NRA Competitive Shooting News ( I occasionally shoot 600 yd F-Class Prone). They have formed a committe to consider sanctioning Multi-gun. Notables on the committee include Andrew Horner, John Gangle, Randy Luth, and Aaron Hampton. I did meet and speak with the NRA Competition Director last year at Fort Benning. Its looks like they are serious about bringing NRA shooting into the 21st century.

[Merlin Orr]

[Carlos]

This thread brings up an important topic for discussion. As such, please keep it civil so it does not get locked.

Couple of thoughts for discussion:

1) Seems that the NRA will simply create YET ANOTHER version of 3gun/multigun, in addition to USPSA & IPSC 3gun, as well as all the other "outlaw" 3gun shoots - each with its own particular set of rules. Those rules have proven contentious around here lately.

2) Two large issues (that I can see anyway) currently separating USPSA 3gun from all the other shoots are: a) What rules define safe gun handling? and Scoring method? There seems to be little agreement here.

I will not touch on scoring (anyone else care to?) but,

From what I can tell, one big issue is mixed-weapon stages and transitions. An outlaw match I shoot locally often requires "transitions" involving re-holstering on the clock in some stages. Other stages allow letting the rifle drop & swing by a single point sling with only the safety (hopefully) engaged, while switching to handgun (all on the clock). USPSA rules would never permit this.

If NRA writes its own rules, I would imagine that they would be at least as restrictive (I see them as safe) as the USPSA rules - plus minimum trigger pull weights are likely. To that end, we will still have just as many outlaw shoots, plus USPSA, plus now NRA rules. I'd rather see more uniformity between all the shoots.

Still, the NRA has the power to draw MANY more gun owners into the sport of 3gun/multigun. Moreover, our own Larry Houck has paved the way with a successful season of NRA Military Personal and leo 3gun run by NRA. So that is a hopeful sign.

Thoughts?

Edited December 3, 2008 by Carlos

[Firstcut]

Will this match be open to all?

[Carlos]

Will this match be open to all?

Yes as far as I can tell. They already have "limited" 3gun for military/leo.

[Sandro]

This thread brings up an important topic for discussion. As such, please keep it civil so it does not get locked.

Couple of thoughts for discussion:

1) Seems that the NRA will simply create YET ANOTHER version of 3gun/multigun, in addition to USPSA & IPSC 3gun, as well as all the other "outlaw" 3gun shoots - each with its own particular set of rules. Those rules have proven contentious around here lately.

2) Two large issues (that I can see anyway) currently separating USPSA 3gun from all the other shoots are: a) What rules define safe gun handling? and Scoring method? There seems to be little agreement here.

I will not touch on scoring (anyone else care to?) but,

From what I can tell, one big issue is mixed-weapon stages and transitions. An outlaw match I shoot locally often requires "transitions" involving re-holstering on the clock in some stages. Other stages allow letting the rifle drop & swing by a single point sling with only the safety (hopefully) engaged, while switching to handgun (all on the clock). USPSA rules would never permit this.

If NRA writes its own rules, I would imagine that they would be at least as restrictive (I see them as safe) as the USPSA rules - plus minimum trigger pull weights are likely. To that end, we will still have just as many outlaw shoots, plus USPSA, plus now NRA rules. I'd rather see more uniformity between all the shoots.

Still, the NRA has the power to draw MANY more gun owners into the sport of 3gun/multigun. Moreover, our own Larry Houck has paved the way with a successful season of NRA Military Personal and leo 3gun run by NRA. So that is a hopeful sign.

Thoughts?

I think USPSA should not wait, Mike should contact NRA and offer to be part of it.

[Benelli Chick]

As of this time, the matches that were represented at the committee have their rules accepted. NRA is thinking out of the box on this, so it will be different than any matches they have sanctioned before.

One of the biggest goals for the NRA is to be able to represent and in some ways speak for "black gun" shooters for the possible issues with guns and legislation.

JJ and I were at the meeting, and the NRA is really taking a very open minded approach. Since, Ft. Benning, Blue Ridge, Rocky Mountain 3-Gun, DPMS, Johnson 3-Gun and LaRue Tactical's matches are already sanctioned with their rules and scoring as they stand, I think this is going to be a better and more flexible NRA.

There was talk about pull down menus, choices for scoring, rules etc. for future matches that want to be sanctioned.

I went to the meeting a little leery, and felt pretty good when I left. Not only were match directors there, the NRA president John Sigler spent the entire weekend with us, the NRA law enforcement people were there for the entire meeting, competitive shooting director Mike Krei and Bill Allen were there the whole time as well. David from Sabre, John from JP and Greg from LaRue, Steve from Progressive gave input from the retailers/sponsor point of view, and as you said Andy was there as well as JJ and I. Randy and Aaron were unable to make the first meeting, but I'm sure they'll be there next time.

Anyway, I'm off to Ft. Benning, but I just wanted to give you a little info so you all wouldn't be too worried or making creative assumptions. "Outlaw" 3-Gun is not changing!

Thanks and take care!

Denise

[GentlemanJim]

I don care about no stinkin rules

I just wanna shoot...where do I sign up?

Jim

[ccur]

I don care about no stinkin rules

I just wanna shoot...where do I sign up?

Jim

+1...

Cheryl

[M ammo]

We do have more than one thread,,, on this same subject,,,,, so I'll add one of my comments,, here as well,,,

Just my 2 cents...

What a mean to say is that I don’t hear the talk or see the interest in some of the competitions that I have in years past.

They do still have the Big rifle match at Camp Perry?

I don’t know anyone who shoots that match?

I know one guy who shoots bulls-eye.

I don’t hear the buzz or the excitement for these sports.

The shooting sports need the buzzzzz we need more people active, for many good reasons.

3 Gun Rules ////// My Local club has run its own rules for years now.

We are not a big national match but we get 25 to 40 shooters each month.

Rules. And enforcement of sanctioned matches.

I have never had a gun inspected at a shooting match. I have been shooting for a wile now, the only time any checking of equipment has been done was a the USPSA Multi gun nationals at the CRONO stage. I have shot that match twice..

Many of us Came up with our own rules, Outlaw, We like our rules they work.

We have no reason to change. For the NRA to get us on board they will have to play our game. Or we have no reason to play.

Not to say I will not go shoot one of their matches if and when one pops up.

From the other post about this subject, it sounds good so far the right people are involved. And if they have a good feeling about the NRA and 3 Gun. I will trust their judgment.

Until we see what the NRA comes out with I will hold my judgment.

And then I will still trust the judgment of the people that were at the meeting with the NRA. They are 3 Gun.

[Yankee Dog]

There are lots of High Power matches out there. I dont know about other areas of the country but in the N. Alabama area I believe High Power would edge out 3gun as far as availability goes. And we dont have a shortage of 3gun.

The Camp Perry matches are alive and well. The American Rifleman has a big write up on them every year. I know several people from the area that attend them on a regular basis.

I think NRA 3gun will be well attended no matter what the rules. Why? Because they will be well funded, well run and all the top shooters will be there. Take a look at NRA Action Pistol as an example.

Yankee Dog

[DMAC]

Getting more people into the sport is a good thing!

Talk about prehistoric and not wanting to come into the current century, (and I do appreciate the roots of the shooting sports and those who enjoy the more traditional aspects) my local rifle and pistol club does not allow shooting on the rifle range from a standing position (not helpful when want to practice for hunting). No targets resembling human form are allowed (no IDPA or IPSC type targets)-WTF?? And hearing and eye protection are not required, but you can smoke on the firing line. I guess it shouldn't surprise me since many of the people around here have never left the county they were born in and many of them are still fighting the civil war.

O.K. rant over. I am just jealous because many of you live closer to a modern club that has IDPA, USPSA, 3 Gun and Sporting Clays, etc. I have dozens of fantastic golf courses all around me and I hate to golf because I suck at it. Come to think of it, I pretty much suck at IDPA, USPSA, 3 Gun and Sporting Clays. Go figure. O.K. rant is really over now. Sorry for the massive thread drift.

[Carlos]

Thanks for the detailed report Denise!

This is off to a very good start it appears. I could NOT be more impressed or optimistic.

-the right people were involved (industry, MDs, Benning(AMU?) and apparently MIL/LEO 3 gun already running within NRA's competition department).

-the approach was apparently an open minded, flexible approach - which is appropriate when dealing with established, profitable, successful shoots

Keep up the good work.

[Jim Norman]

IF the NRA sanctions Multi-Gun I believe it will be a good thing. Mainstream recognition as opposed to "Outlaw" Not that we equate outlaw as some would, we think of it as 'Our Rules" others hear outlaw as badguys.

Would I change my match rules to be acceptable to the NRA? Maybe yes, maybe no. I certainly will not rule out anything at this point. We need the clout or we will not be shooting. Sadly some of our biggest detractors are the people that shoot the more traditional sports or simply hunt. By having the NRA accept us we can maybe win over some of these people and get them to realize that as our founding fathers said; Gentlemen, we must hang together for surely we will hang alone.

Jim

[Charles Bond]

Jim:

Know that by this post I am not disagreeing with the central theme of your post but I am confused. Can you tell me exactly what you believe that having "NRA accept us" is going to do for your match? It seems to me that the NRA needs us in order to justify their protect these guns because they have a sporting purpose thesis. NRA exists to protect our gun rights. I fail to see that why being sanctioned by the NRA or it being an NRA event makes it more protected. NRA is not going to fail to protect it because it is not an NRA event.

Assume the subject is college sports rather than shooting. How is the sport going to be more protected if it is a member of the ACC or SEC as opposed to being independent like Notre Dame? I really fail to see how allowing NRA to write the rules is going to give NRA a stronger legal basis for asserting a sporting purpose to the type of weapons we use in our events.

Charles

[GentlemanJim]

NRA is all about shooting and safety.

ILA is the loby

Jim

[scirocco38s]

I know Larry is reading some of these so I will insert my opinion, and I am glad he is running the program for the leo/military 3gun for this last year. If he can get the NRA to adopt our principals then great.

NRA sanctioning would definetly help get 3gun and some clubs, and the NRA santioning would open up some very nice venues otherwise not available to us.

I am glad that the NRA is wanting to get involved and participate. But that is where it ends. I dont want uspsa or any of the other 3-gun systems out there to bend to the NRA if it starts demanding certain things for there sanctioning that we wouldnt normally do already.

I definetly would not participate if any of the gun rules I compete under have to be changed, No to minimum trigger weight, no to which safeties must be present, No to magazine restrictions. We(uspsa) have an excellent safety track record, so our safety rules should be the only ones we accept. In other words, they can conform to us we do not conform to them.

If an idea comes up that makes sense for everyone involved then lets look at it and make the change based on that, but we cannot compromise on what has worked for us.

I would say that they need us more than we need them as we have soldiered on for all these years without them.

[onyx]

Well I am a new three gunner, and I think with way things sound like there headed in our country.

I say the more we can get new people into shooting sports the better, people need to see that guns are not just for self defense and harming some one. It can be a fun family sport.

go Nra and all shooting sports

Edited December 5, 2008 by onyx

[ShaunH]

Well I am a new three gunner, and I think with way things sound like there headed in our country.

I say the more we can get new people into shooting sports the better, people need to see that guns are not just for self defense and harming some one. It can be a fun family sport.

go Nra and all shooting sports

Maybe. I can see it drawing people that are familiar with guns and maybe some people who have never shot before, but the gun debate is a polarizing issue and I'm not sure that people from the other side of the aisle or those that have no opinion are going to look at us having fun with our guns and say, "Ah yeah, that's not so bad, I want my spouse and kids to do that." Especially, if the NRA gets involved. Their prestige in the public is tenuous at best.

I'm a NRA life member and I appreciate most of the things they do, but when it comes to the shooting sports, I'm a little wary of their decision to sanction multi-gun. It's not as if they've embraced USPSA with open arms in the past, at least that I'm aware of, but if this move toward multi-gun opens a bridge between the NRA and USPSA I think that it could be beneficial as long as they don't try to take over.

However, if their version of multi-gun is shooting pistol, rifle, and shotgun from either side of a barricade, you can count me out. Sorry, I'm possessed.

[Chuck Anderson]

I see it as a very good thing. NRA has access to many shooters that do not traditionally view black rifles with any particular fondness. There are many, many members of NRA that own a hunting rifle and that is it. If NRA is sanctioning and covering three gun in American Rifleman it will open up and make more accessible that sport to these folks. Even if they don't come out and shoot they see another use for the rifles other than just use by criminals. Trust me, there are a lot of gun owners that don't feel anyone needs to own evil assault rifles. Also the ATF does take some guidance from the NRA (not all but some) and part of the sporting purposes definition comes from established sporting events. If a gun is commonly used in an NRA sanctioned event, it will be more likely to be accepted by the ATF, which potentially means some more guns being allowed.

We can't stick our heads in the sand and ignore the NRA, if they want to help we need to let them, especially for the next few years. There is no reason at this point to start laying down the law about what is acceptable or not. The NRA hasn't made any demands. Lets see what they have first. The NRA has come a long way in the last 10-15 years. Their LE training used to be horrible, it's much better now. The LE 3-Gun matches they have done seem to be a good first step. Hopefully with this outreach they will be opening them up more at some point in the future.

[psyops]

I see it as a very good thing. NRA has access to many shooters that do not traditionally view black rifles with any particular fondness. There are many, many members of NRA that own a hunting rifle and that is it. If NRA is sanctioning and covering three gun in American Rifleman it will open up and make more accessible that sport to these folks. Even if they don't come out and shoot they see another use for the rifles other than just use by criminals. Trust me, there are a lot of gun owners that don't feel anyone needs to own evil assault rifles. Also the ATF does take some guidance from the NRA (not all but some) and part of the sporting purposes definition comes from established sporting events. If a gun is commonly used in an NRA sanctioned event, it will be more likely to be accepted by the ATF, which potentially means some more guns being allowed.

We can't stick our heads in the sand and ignore the NRA, if they want to help we need to let them, especially for the next few years. There is no reason at this point to start laying down the law about what is acceptable or not. The NRA hasn't made any demands. Lets see what they have first. The NRA has come a long way in the last 10-15 years. Their LE training used to be horrible, it's much better now. The LE 3-Gun matches they have done seem to be a good first step. Hopefully with this outreach they will be opening them up more at some point in the future.

+1 Amen, Lawman. Well said...

[3gunpinoy]

Rember 1994, Clinton years, don't want that again !! we should all band together and with the upcoming administration, we have to be a force to recon with. we can worry about rules later, but to I, for one, just want a safe and competitive shooting sport that does not make me an "OUTLAW" becuase of my "Black OUTLAWED Rifle"

[Jim Norman]

Jim:

Know that by this post I am not disagreeing with the central theme of your post but I am confused. Can you tell me exactly what you believe that having "NRA accept us" is going to do for your match? It seems to me that the NRA needs us in order to justify their protect these guns because they have a sporting purpose thesis. NRA exists to protect our gun rights. I fail to see that why being sanctioned by the NRA or it being an NRA event makes it more protected. NRA is not going to fail to protect it because it is not an NRA event.

Assume the subject is college sports rather than shooting. How is the sport going to be more protected if it is a member of the ACC or SEC as opposed to being independent like Notre Dame? I really fail to see how allowing NRA to write the rules is going to give NRA a stronger legal basis for asserting a sporting purpose to the type of weapons we use in our events.

Charles

Charles,

What I see is the "Mainstream" shooters that currently turn their noses up at us might, MIGHT see us in a different light with NRA Acceptence.

Jim

[Merlin Orr]

I know Larry is reading some of these so I will insert my opinion, and I am glad he is running the program for the leo/military 3gun for this last year. If he can get the NRA to adopt our principals then great.

NRA sanctioning would definetly help get 3gun and some clubs, and the NRA santioning would open up some very nice venues otherwise not available to us.

I am glad that the NRA is wanting to get involved and participate. But that is where it ends. I dont want uspsa or any of the other 3-gun systems out there to bend to the NRA if it starts demanding certain things for there sanctioning that we wouldnt normally do already.

I definetly would not participate if any of the gun rules I compete under have to be changed, No to minimum trigger weight, no to which safeties must be present, No to magazine restrictions. We(uspsa) have an excellent safety track record, so our safety rules should be the only ones we accept. In other words, they can conform to us we do not conform to them.

If an idea comes up that makes sense for everyone involved then lets look at it and make the change based on that, but we cannot compromise on what has worked for us.

I would say that they need us more than we need them as we have soldiered on for all these years without them.

yep.

[Jaxshooter]

I think this is very positive. Adding the NRA to the list that supports the "Black Rifle" shooters can be nothing but better for all of us. I don't care what rules they use. I do care about thier support of 3 Gun as they are much better connected and have much deeper pockets to fight and be heard than the USPSA.