NRA wants to Sanction Multi-gun

[Blockhead]

I'm encouraged by NRA's attitude as expressed by the folks that attended the meeting. It sounds as though they're not trying to change our sport. Rather, I'm hearing that they want to bring the shooting sports that utilize the "Black Rifle" into a place of greater visibility. I've noticed a similar direction in the editorial direction of the NRA's media outlets as well.

My only regret is that USPSA wasn't involved. I don't really care why 'cause it's past and bitch'n about it won't change anything. However, I would like to suggest to the USPSA members here in the benoverse that we lobby our leadership at USPSA to take steps to be a part of this as well. I know there's some "history" to get around on this. All the same, this is the time to close ranks.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Blockhead

[Religious Shooter]

Man... I look at the list of attendees and I cringe when I think that the NRA will possibly adopt Horner scoring.

Yuck!

But oh well...

[bgary]

lobby our leadership at USPSA to take steps to be a part of this as well

Would *love* to be a part of it. Didn't know about it until it was over.

[M ammo]

Sanction

The feeling I hear form some, is that they have a feeling that things (shooting competition in this case)

Needs to be. Sanctioned in some way.

I must say once you go outlaw. (use the force Luke) Let go!

The freedom will set you free!

Many of the opinions and arguments are then null and void. For you have stepped up and solved and fixed whatever you did not like.

This freedom will set you free!

For in our world of outlaw we made up our own rules. We took what we liked and left what we did not. Yes I’m speaking from our local clubs perspective.

We did however make the divisions diverse enough, so that everyone can play. And not have to shoot against the Open guy unless you wish to do so.

I like the Idea of Sanctioned matches. With the NRA! This way you can have a true, Regional or National match.

But once you get enough people together to have a 3 Gun match at your local level.

Have one! Do it! life is to short not too.

Don’t wait for Bureaucracy to lead the way.

Do it. Let the NRA catch up.

[Carlos]

lobby our leadership at USPSA to take steps to be a part of this as well

Would *love* to be a part of it. Didn't know about it until it was over.

WHOA - THAT CHANGES THINGS. USPSA snubbed? Sure sounds like they were completely left out of this meeting.

Considering who the parties involved are, this was clearly intentional on the part of the NRA.

Question now is: WHY?

This WAS starting to look like something good.

[LChico]

lobby our leadership at USPSA to take steps to be a part of this as well

Would *love* to be a part of it. Didn't know about it until it was over.

WHOA - THAT CHANGES THINGS. USPSA snubbed? Sure sounds like they were completely left out of this meeting.

Considering who the parties involved are, this was clearly intentional on the part of the NRA.

Question now is: WHY?

This WAS starting to look like something good.

You may be jumping the gun (couldn't resist the pun) because the meeting was held during the World Shoot. Lack of attendance is not the same thing as 'not invited' & is a huge leap from 'snubbed.'

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

[bgary]

You may be jumping the gun (couldn't resist the pun) because the meeting was held during the World Shoot. Lack of attendance is not the same thing as 'not invited' & is a huge leap from 'snubbed.'

I can't tell you whether there was any sort of deliberate "snub".

I will assert that I'm not aware of anyone in the USPSA chain of command who received an invite. Or, in fact, knew it was going to happen at all.

[Alan Meek]

You may be jumping the gun (couldn't resist the pun) because the meeting was held during the World Shoot. Lack of attendance is not the same thing as 'not invited' & is a huge leap from 'snubbed.'

I can't tell you whether there was any sort of deliberate "snub".

I will assert that I'm not aware of anyone in the USPSA chain of command who received an invite. Or, in fact, knew it was going to happen at all.

I also am not aware of anyone in the USPSA chain of command who received an invite.

Alan (Drives with in a very long stones throw of the NRA HQ 10times a week on my way to and from work) Meek

[Chuck Anderson]

USPSA has 3 Gun?

[Charles Bond]

USPSA has 3 Gun?

USPSA has 3 gun, multigun, shot gun, rifle and of course pistol in the traditional USPSA format and has now added steel challenge.

[Benelli Chick]

Please don't think USPSA was snubbed.

This is what I understand:

Aaron Hampton asked the NRA to sanction the Ft. Benning match. I assume (you know what that means) that it sounds better to a general to hold an NRA sanctioned match rather than an "outlaw" match.

I think that since USPSA is already a National Shooting Organization that sanctions matches, that the non-sanctioned matches were invited! Possibly, the assumption was, why be sanctioned twice?

I don't think the NRA was trying to be divisive, just giving some credibility to the AMU's match (in some eyes) and bringing more shooters under the NRA umbrella that shoot "black" now to be referred to as "competition" guns.

Many shooters will shoot under both organizations, like me, and in some ways be represented twice in future gun issues!

That's just my perception, but I'm sure there was no snubbing!

Denise

[uscbigdawg]

John Siegler was at FB3G last year and the NRA had reps there this year. Basically, they are taking the rules from all the variations and will come up with a composite of probably their own, to include scoring. For the purposes of the NRA, I would see Horner scoring (or some variation there of) being the most appropriate.

It's a phenomenal opportunity to be a sport under the body of the NRA as it DOES legitimize our sport, opens it up to a much, much, MUCH larger market and gives us a VERY strong political force to support our equipment in legislation. The most current example that I can give is the assault weapon-ish ban in CA that after many complaints, etc. has an exemption for Olympic pistols (i.e. Pardini's by physical characteristics are considered assault weapons but are specifically exempt by some basis of "sporting purposes" definition).

This is a time to provide information and support to the NRA in any way we can to make this happen.

Rich

[ShaunH]

I guess we shall see what happens. I hope that it will be beneficial for everyone.

[Larry White]

I havent decided how I feel about this yet. USPSA, NRA, some other body or just like it stands, sacationed or un sacationed. But I would like the term "Outlaw" to go away.-----------Larry

[chendersby]

USPSA has 3 Gun?

USPSA has 3 gun, multigun, shot gun, rifle and of course pistol in the traditional USPSA format and has now added steel challenge.

Uh Charles, I think that was a sarcastic remark.

[Blockhead]

I absolutely agree. The "outlaw" term carries too many meanings, especially with people outside of our shooting community. We need a word that expresses independence and freedom without the less-than-lawful overtones with no more than 6 letters and 2 syllables. Perhaps a separate thread is required?

[ShaunH]

I absolutely agree. The "outlaw" term carries too many meanings, especially with people outside of our shooting community. We need a word that expresses independence and freedom without the less-than-lawful overtones with no more than 6 letters and 2 syllables. Perhaps a separate thread is required?

Inlaw?

Edited December 9, 2008 by ShaunH

[uscbigdawg]

or just "independent".

Rich

[bgary]

I've been following this thread and, I'll preface this by saying I would *love* it if NRA would sanction multigun matches... and would help work towards that end, but... I can't help being [personally] curious about a couple of things. Not meaning to piss on the campfire, just honestly curious and want to expand my own understanding.

1) USPSA has been running "run-and-gun" pistol matches for some time, ran run-and-gun rifle matches and shotgun matches under the "old-style" 3-gun tournament format, and adopted its first set of multigun rules nearly 5 years ago. To my knowledge, NRA doesn't run *any* kind of run-and-gun competitions. I'd love to get NRA sanction for USPSA stuff, but my [anecdotal] understanding is that they don't want anything to do with run-and-gun styles of competition. My inference is that "freestyle" is worrisome to them - much easier to make people stand in a box or behind a barricade. I'm... worried about what NRA sanctioning would mean for multigun, if sanctioning came with "conditions" about what you could (or could not) do in a multigun match. Anyone else worried about that? Or is it just me?

2) USPSA has tried for a couple of years to "build consensus" with the major multigun matches, with the goal of at least having some consistency in the equipment rules, if not the scoring. But hasn't gained much traction. Most of the majors have indicated that they value their independence because they get to do things the way they feel is best for their shooters, even if it is different from everyone else (eg "time-plus, one hit anywhere" vs. "time plus, one A or two anywhere" vs "Horner" vs... etc.) Now the NRA comes in and those same matches seem really excited about the fact that the NRA might write a set of rules that would work for everyone. I... don't get that. I guess that's really two questions: Is it really possible to have a set of rules that all the majors agree with? And, do we really think that the NRA (which, at present, has no experience with *any* multigun competition) has the ability to write them without unintended consequences?

3) And, I guess on a personal level, I can't figure out why USPSA wasn't invited (to the best of my knowledge) to the summit. It's not like we're a well-kept secret and nobody knew how to get a hold of us. And while the USPSA multigun nats is not really considered one of the "majors" by most of the players, we *do* support multigun competition at all levels of the org (club, area/region and national) - unlike IPSC, which, as far as I know is still taking an "over my dead body" stance on the idea of using more than one gun on a stage. I'm a "problem-solver" by nature and by profession, and I just can't figure out what "the problem" is, here. But whatever it is, I want to fix it, because I want USPSA to be part of a *community* of multigun competitions, not be on the wrong side of lines that fracture us further. So... any hints about why we didn't get an invite, and how we get invited to the next one? I think we have a contribution to make.

As I said above, I'm not trying to make waves, I'm just trying to figure this out. As [some of ?] you know, I spent the better part of a year reaching out to the leaders of all the majors, getting their insights, learning their rules, writing the first version of USPSA's multigun rules, and building consensus on the USPSA Board to get them passed. That was no small thing.... it wasn't a very good set of rules (and still has some issues, three versions later), but it was a "first step", it was a step in the right direction, and it helped us put multigun on a bigger map. I am passionate about multigun, and I'm [personally] proud that we were able to take that step and stretch USPSA in a new direction.

It is worth taking the *next* step, now. If there is an opportunity to build some real bridges between the various multigun majors, I want "in". If there is an opportunity to work with NRA to broaden run-and-gun competitions, I want "in". And if there is any real chance that our efforts would result in recognition of "sporting purposes" for our stuff, hell yeah I want "in". I think USPSA has a lot to add to the equation. I think there's a real opportunity to grow the sport as a whole. I think "now" is a great time to do it. But most of all, I think that the things we have in common are far more important than the things that divide us.... and more to the point, if we let things continue to divide us, it will kill us all.

I *totally* get the value of NRA sanctioning, if that is a real possibility. At the same time, though, I can't help wondering what the "cost" will be (what would have to be given up to get it), and whether it would really result in "common ground", or whether it would create a whole 'nuther category of "different kind of multi-gun match", that will divide us further. So I'm hoping some of you that were at the meeting can help me understand how I should think about NRA's involvement in this, and - if possible - how we can get USPSA constructively involved in the process, too. I mean, jeez, at the very least if NRA is willing to sanction multigun matches, it would be a great thing to get NRA sanctioning for USPSA multigun, too. JMHO.

Bruce

Edited December 9, 2008 by bgary

[uscbigdawg]

Bruce,

I think that if you view things in a different manor, it might help.

First, I don't think anyone cares if the NRA develops its own multi-gun matches (i.e. another set of rules/scoring) and it's different than USPSA, IMGA, FB3G, et. al. I'm quite certain that they are going that they will do what they want to do and it will probably be contrary to half of what USPSA has as priorities.

The USPSA Multi-Gun Nat's has been described to me as better than the worst club match but no where near as good as ANY independent multi-gun match. Having shot the first MG Nat's in '04 (where my scores as an RO didn't count for match score and we didn't get to shoot half the stages) I'm sure it's changed since, but after reviews of the most recent, I have to say that there's something amiss. Having just completed the FB3G match and seeing the 9 (8-1/2" x 11") pages of rules and RO'ing it as well, the LACK of attempting to define every little thing is an advantage to the match since we can respond to many shooter questions with, "THIS IS NOT USPSA!". We won't even go into the prize table.

As for why USPSA wasn't invited to the party, I'd say that's more the NRA's decision to handle it themselves that an exclusion of USPSA. Fact is that the independent 3-Gun matches are WAY more successful than USPSA matches so while I'm sure they've reviewed the matches USPSA has held, in the end, reviewing the most successful will give you information that shooters want.

Frankly, if USPSA wants to get more interest in its multi-gun matches, change the scoring system or cut the rule book down by about 80% and quit trying to accomodate the needs/wants of everyone (see deleting classes).

Rich

[TRUBL]

I beg to differ with you Mr. Gary....and I do not want this to become a USPSA thread bashing, as it is a thread for the NRA to sanction the 3 gun that is out there.

The NRA came in with NO preconception of what to expect or to dictate what it was to be, asked for experts in the world of what you call 'outlaw' 3 gun because, well, it works and is growing. And they want to get involved with something that is running succesfully and see what they can do to make it grow. And most importantly....they are taking the advice of these experts.

This is not what the USPSA did when they came to the 'outlaw' matches.

As for whether or not NRA sanctioning is a good thing or bad thing? We'll have to see.....but it is worth the effort to find out. As, even if this does not work out, at least they gave it a good effort.

[cheryl]

As a 5 year NRA match director, it became very clear that NRA matches were to make money. If I was 10 days late in making the match payment, I would get an official notice that I was late. However, any questions or requests for support were ignored.

You need to also be aware that by NRA rules, it is unsafe for a bullet to impact a berm outside of a 90 degree angle. That makes stage setup a more than just a little tough. It also makes for extremely boring scenarios.

By NRA rules it is also unsafe for a berm to be less than 25 feet tall. When you find out to be NRA sanctioned you have to raise all your berm heights to 25 feet, and you get some estimates for the work, NRA might not look so good.

These are just my personal experiences in dealing/talking with NRA. And it might be just the people that I had contact with. Things may change for these type matches.

But you always need to read the fine print...........

[abn-rgr]

Earlier this year I competed and RO'ed in the military/law enforcement 3-gun match in Stockton, MO at Bear Creek Tactical Range. Because of the popularity of this match, Bear Creek is talking about running monthly USPSA sanctioned matches next year. This is a great thing in my opinion. It was a great match and loads of fun. The rules were a little different, and they are still growing (this was only the third such match). I dont remember any 25 ft tall berms. I think this is definitely a step in the right direction for our sport. I dont care if it is "outlaw" or some other scoring and equipment rules, I just like to shoot. I had to use a shotgun in this match I wasnt familair with because my M1 had too long of a barrel. It was no big deal and I learned how to run a shotgun I hadnt fired much. Larry Houck ran a great match and is a great guy. If the guys trying to start NRA 3-gun are as squared away as him, it should be a great deal. Just my .02.

Edited December 9, 2008 by abn-rgr

[GentlemanJim]

Division is the only real problem here.

People have aligned them selves with each scoring system or subtle differences in the way matches are conducted.

It boils down to a my dog is better than your dog mentality.

USPSA has to stay within the boundrys of DVC...cant people just accept that? and enjoy shooting it?

Whatever NRA comes up with ...it will be a big plus for all who love to shoot 3gun...and a plus for all who shoot anything!!!

There are so many different disciplines of shooting sports...I may not shoot them all...but I accept them all and respect them all.

I just love to compete and to shoot..so I play by whatever rules apply...some I prefer over others, but I will play just the same.

The NRA has been, is now , and will always be the MOST powerful force to defend Our rights to own and bear arms.

Having the NRA accept us into the fold may be the most important event to ever happen in the history of our sport.

I would encourage people to focus on bringing us all together, not driving wedges between us.

JMHO

Jim

[Yankee Dog]

................................I had to use a shotgun in this match I wasnt familair with because my M1 had too long of a barrel. It was no big deal and I learned how to run a shotgun I hadnt fired much. ..................................

that is one thing that is a deal breaker for me. I wont go to a match if the rules exclude my guns. I am not going borrow or buy something to try to keep up with the every changing opinions on what is "tactical" or "practical". Call me pissy, but I will stay home if the equipment rules are too restrictive. And please if you are going to have equipment restrictions, publish them before the match. It is really rude to have someone drive three hours to a match only to find out they cant run what they brung.

yankee dog