NRA wants to Sanction Multi-gun

[Merlin Orr]

Lets hear what they have to say.................Then make a judgement as to Yea or Nay....?

[bgary]

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

Well.... yes and no.

On the one hand, that's *exactly* what USPSA did. We - or more specifically *I* - "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."

I personally called Dan Furbee, JP, Randy Luth, Kurt Miller, and Mike Gibson as well as a bunch of top competitors (Mike Voigt and Erik Lund and RJ and Taran and Matt and Bennie and a whole host of others, including... well, you) to figure out this whole thing and see if there was a way USPSA could extend it past the handful of big matches a year and put it in front of thousands of shooters at the club level. We wanted to get involved with something that was running successfully and see if we could make it grow. Starting with asking the experts.

But, the devil is in the details. In the course of all those phone calls, what I came to learn was that no two of the then-existing matches agreed on much. Scoring. Shotgun barrel length. Definition of "heavy metal / he-man" equipment. Divisions. Optics. Targets. Whatever. EVERY one of the matches prints their own version of the IMGA rules. EVERY match has their own flavor of divisions. And not only did no two matches align on much, EVERY one of them took the stance that "their way" was the right way, and everyone else was wrong. So, where USPSA would have loved to have "joined the crowd"... there wasn't a crowd to join. There were... a handful of successful, but *different* matches.

That left USPSA with a really tough array of choices.... in that, it didn't matter which answer we picked for USPSA multigun, it would have been "wrong" to the majority of the other major matches. At the end of the day we made choices that we felt were appropriate in the context of existing USPSA rules and safety parameters. And we made some mis-steps, there is no doubt about that. But my point remains, if there had *been* common ground among the major matches, we would have happily joined you in it. There wasn't. (in point of fact, about the only significant area of common ground is that just about all the IMGA rules include USPSA safety rules by reference. But I don't want to make this an IMGA-bashing thread)

That does, though, bring me back to my original question, above. Is anything different now? Is there common ground among the major 3-gun matches. Has everyone agreed that Horner is the scoring approach? Has everyone agreed on the same standards for shotgun barrel length and how optics are scored vs. Irons and what factors consistute a legitimate HM rifle round? If so, *GREAT!* - I know that USPSA would be interested in joining the crowd, and I'll work my ass off to make it work. (Heck, they might even be willing to consider moving away from DVC somewhat if that's what it takes to be part of the larger community.) Because I truly *do* believe that "divided we'll fall".

But... if nothing is different now? Then... I still don't "get" what NRA's involvement will accomplish. If the major matches are not able/willing to agree on a common set of rules/equipment parameters/scoring methods, then what? Or, to put a sharper edge on it, if the NRA writes a rule book that none of the majors are willing to adopt, because it would mean giving up something they hold to be good, then... how does that help the sport?

Bruce (I want this to work. I really do.)

Edited December 9, 2008 by bgary

[SGDM]

Let me put these Urban Legends to rest. I am also on the committee and I assure you that the NRA is not going to regulate, they are going to support. I for one was very skeptical but left the meeting very positive about the future of Multi-Gun sanctioned by the NRA. The match director will continue to be in charge and choose rules and regulations that will support their match. We will be under the "umbrella" of the NRA, a powerful entity if required to support the use of black guns, tactical weapons, high cap mags, and ammo.

[uscbigdawg]

Bruce,

I know that none of the big independent matches use EZWinscore. Their rules are all simple and straight forward and I for one have the same exact gun setup for USPSA & independent matches...and I'm not the only one. Also...they share in common selling out in less an hour (or minute...).

SGDM - Glad to hear that it's more support than regulation ONLY because of simplicity for the shooters and match directors.

Rich

[atbarr]

I emailed NRA. Below is the answer.

A.T.,

As of right now we have no information into the matches. We are going to start sanctionong and offering some financial support to Multi gun matches in the near future. We are going to be hiring somewhere as a liason more less to the multi gun crowd but right now your best be to look for the 3 gun matches through another source, IE; Brian Enos, or DPMS, Sabre.

Brian H. Zins

National Manager Pistol Programs

NRA Competitive Shooting Division

BZins@nrahq.org

Office (703)267-1451

Blackberry (703) 859-1962

-----Original Message-----

From: A.T. Barr [mailto:atbarr@windstream.net]

Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:31 PM

To: Pistol

Cc: _A.T.

Subject: Information please

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...4893&hl=NRA

Where can I find some information on this? I'm glad to see that "my" NRA is recognizing there are 1,000's of potential new NRA members, that shoot USPSA and IDPA.

Sincerely,

A.T. Barr

NRA Life member # 9809551

[abn-rgr]

................................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

It was announced in the match bulletin. The rules were posted on their website. Since this was a military/law enforcement only match, there was certain equipment we couldnt use. It was supposed to stay within what we really use. They even provided shotguns and rifles if you didnt have one.

[ShaunH]

There are so many facets to this discussion it boggles the mind.

If NRA adopts a certain set of rules for multi-gun and the independent 3-gun/multi-gunners don't like it, I would assume they would probably leave. So, we'll see what they come up with. I think if their idea works for everybody, then I'm sure Bruce and like-minded individuals would look into incorporating those ideas as long as they are feasible. Have the independents come to USPSA and given them imput these past years? Have they listened or were you blown off? I don't know so, I'm asking. I realize we probably won't see zip line shooting in a sanctioned match, shooting from a flying helicopter, or using automatics, but I would like to know specifically what the major reasons are that USPSA multi-gun is considered better than the worst club match other than the scoring and the prize table. Maybe we need to have a "constitutional convention" to discuss what needs to be changed by the "experts".

I think Cheryl had a good point though. These independents are seeing incredible turn-outs and I wonder what the motives of NRA are. Just my own curiosity. Nothing wrong with making money, but if that is the only motive then it's pretty sad.

I do have to wonder about the style of competition. My understanding, having gone through a few NRA programs and having discussed IPSC with several NRA instructors and representatives is that NRA is a marksmanship oriented competitive body apart from its political body and that "combat shooting" was for law enforcement and military personnel, civilians need not apply because of the impression it would give the public. It wasn't just one person that eluded to that point. Which, is why I made the smart ass comment about the NRA version of 3-gun being shooting pistol, rifle, and shotgun from either side of a barricade. So if they do embrace 3-gun at its core, it would seem to be a policy shift, I could be wrong and I'm sure somebody will correct me if I am.

My personal opinion is that if NRA wanted a consensus and wanted all the big dogs there to glean information from them, then they would have invited USPSA. "IF" they really wanted a consensus, which breeds more division within the ranks of the various shooting groups. I'm Joe nobody in USPSA, I'm not a big director, adviser, or anything important, so whether they included USPSA or not doesn't offend me, but if we look at this rationally they had to know that the powerhouse in run-n-gun might be offended or put off if they were not asked to participate in a harmless information gathering session. The fact that they didn't, tells me they're trying to acquire the independents under their banner to the exclusion of USPSA. Motive? Paragraph 3 maybe?

As far as the assumption that being sanctioned by the NRA will help protect our guns or our rights, which has been expressed here is debatable based on judicial and legislative history. "Shall not be infringed" means nothing, "might makes right." Not that I agree with it on moral grounds, but it is often true. Thrasymacus wins again!!

Edited December 10, 2008 by ShaunH

[kurtm]

I think it is all good. USPSA, NRA, OUTLAW, the more matches the better, if you don't like the way one entity does things there are more to choose from. Read the rules and play...or don't play. This whole thing isn't about who is good and who is bad, it is about support and choice...so viva la difference! Just to make things clear...I wasn't invited either...I would have eaten all the cookies

[Carlos]

Some clarification & a few facts here:

1) As to "why" the NRA is doing this, Denise wrote on page 1 of this thread:

"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 . . ."

2) As to why some of us might just be surprised at this turn of events, ShaunH wrote:

. . . My understanding, having gone through a few NRA programs and having discussed IPSC with several NRA instructors and representatives is that NRA is a marksmanship oriented competitive body apart from its political body and that "combat shooting" was for law enforcement and military personnel, civilians need not apply because of the impression it would give the public. It wasn't just one person that eluded to that point. . . . So if they do embrace 3-gun at its core, it would seem to be a policy shift, I could be wrong and Im sure somebody will correct me if I am.

You are not wrong.

FACT: the NRA has long hosted NRA "Police Pistol Competition" (PPC). Civilians are barred from participating. PPC uses an NRA target that looks like this (but again, civilians are not allowed to shoot at this target):

In contrast, NRA hosts NRA Action Pistol that is open to us civilians. The target that us civilians are allowed to shoot at looks like this:

Many shooting ranges make use of NRA "range consultants" who suggest model safety rules. One rule that is OFTEN adopted at the NRA's suggestion is: "No torso-shaped or human silhouette targets allowed"

So, it is more than a little surprising that the NRA seems to have made such a dramatic about-face in welcoming the various 3gun/multigun shoots out there (all of which use either USPSA or IDPA torso shaped targets).

Everyone: this is a valuable discussion for all involved. Let's keep it civil so the thread does not get closed.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Carlos

[Benelli Chick]

There is a shift at NRA as far as I can see.

They are interested in ACTION shooting!

The LE 3-Gun matches have designed a new "torso shaped" target, and will be allowing some of us to try it out in non-LE matches!

The stage designs that I have seen for the NRA LE 3-Gun matches, look a lot like "independent" 3-Gun stages to me!

There is a shift in the wind!

As far as support, it is my understanding that although the supreme court changes balance, they have been reluctant to throw out previous supreme court decisions. That being said, defining what many are calling assault guns as competition guns, does seem to be politically(legally) helpful to me!

If MANY civilians are shooting "competition" guns, they are no longer for the military or law enforcement alone. Now, they're sporting guns, for the sport of competitive shooting!

Denise

[Chuck Anderson]

I got a chance to talk to Larry a Ft. Benning last weekned. While I'm disappointed that USPSA was not involved in the meeting it sounds like the NRA does have some very beneficial ideas regarding 3-Gun. They have a new humanoid target. It's definitely geared as a person shaped target with neck and scoring zones that reflect the reality of putting lead into another persons body. It's the biggest shift I've seen from the NRA in a long time. I get the impression after talking to a number of IMGA match directors that they aren't the kind of people that would bend to the NRA if the NRA tried to get them to do something they were opposed to. If the decisions made by NRA are good for the sport I'm sure they'll be accepted. If they try to back door us, I'm sure they won't be getting much traction. Keep in mind also that while the NRA may not actively sanction 3-Gun now they have been the home of the RM3Gun which is most definitely a run and gun match.

[ShaunH]

It seems that there is a shift in the wind since NRA is taking a look at it, but another point that I don't think has been brought up is: What if the NRA general membership, competitive, or political faction complains? We do know that the main body is composed of people who think the AR-15 is a real assault rifle and that the 2nd amendment is about hunting.

I remember shooting CMP awhile back before the AWB. The AR's were starting to be seen at some of the matches and the old timers with their Garands and M1A/M14's were up in arms (pun intended) about them. I remember hearing a few guys bitch about these GD assault rifles being used. Had a couple guys go home and wouldn't shoot unless the AR's were banned from the match. Today, in Service Rifle, you mostly see AR's with a few die hard hold outs on the line, but it was a hard sell at first because of the mentality of people involved. I think what really helped was the lighter recoil, accuracy, and the scarcity and expense of match .30-06 and .308 brass in conjunction with the price of bullets for these venerable weapons going way up in price. Match quality is very pricey.

That being said, this is a different ball game with a deeper outfield. It's not just the rifle platform that is changing, it's the way these rifles, shotguns, and handguns are being used and on humanoid targets too, perish the thought. (Get it perish, its funny). If most of the members of NRA competitive shooting balk, this could all be for nothing and you know some of them will. I remember the guy who got me into the NRA looking at my AR-15 and telling me, "You don't need a bazooka to hunt Bambie". To which my reply was, "Yeah, but wouldn't it be cool to try, it's already in pieces so you just grill it!" That mentality is still prevalent among the membership and so is mine.

If MANY civilians are shooting "competition" guns, they are no longer for the military or law enforcement alone. Now, they're sporting guns, for the sport of competitive shooting!"

I disagree. We don't make that assessment the government does.

Lawman said:

Keep in mind also that while the NRA may not actively sanction 3-Gun now they have been the home of the RM3Gun which is most definitely a run and gun match.

Maybe the RM3Gun was one reason or a proving ground to see if NRA wanted to look into this and get involved in a more official capacity? Just a guess.

Edited December 10, 2008 by ShaunH

[Benelli Chick]

I'm not sure what Shaun is talking about. The NRA showed no interest in Rocky Mountain 3-Gun until 2007. The new president has shown a great deal of interest since then.

As far as the NRA, I'm not totally clear on the details, but the NRA doesn't provide daily funding for the Whittington Center. They're on their own, so having a match in the most beautiful place to shoot (haven't seen Kentucky yet) has nothing to do with the NRA organization!

I know that everyone wants to know where this is going, but you'll have to be patient. Making guesses about unified rules and other things, scare people, and make people anxious when they might not need to be.

At this time, Rocky Mountain 3-Gun (and Johnson 3-Gun) are sanctioned by the NRA for 2009. Blue Ridge, DPMS, LaRue, are all able to be sanctioned as well. It's the beginning. We'll see where it goes! If Rocky Mountain chooses not to be sanctioned, we can still hold our match at the Whittington Center. They are really not related!

But please, there really isn't any conspiracy that I'm aware of to take over or rake in the millions of dollars made at 3-Gun matches across the nation! (That was sarcasm! 3-Gun is not a money making venture, at least for us. We do it for the love of the sport!)

We want to be able to keep on doing it, and the NRA may be able to help us keep our "competition" guns so we can continue to play and exercise our 2nd amendment rights!

Denise

[ShaunH]

I'm not sure what Shaun is talking about. The NRA showed no interest in Rocky Mountain 3-Gun until 2007. The new president has shown a great deal of interest since then.

As far as the NRA, I'm not totally clear on the details, but the NRA doesn't provide daily funding for the Whittington Center. They're on their own, so having a match in the most beautiful place to shoot (haven't seen Kentucky yet) has nothing to do with the NRA organization!

I know that everyone wants to know where this is going, but you'll have to be patient. Making guesses about unified rules and other things, scare people, and make people anxious when they might not need to be.

At this time, Rocky Mountain 3-Gun (and Johnson 3-Gun) are sanctioned by the NRA for 2009. Blue Ridge, DPMS, LaRue, are all able to be sanctioned as well. It's the beginning. We'll see where it goes! If Rocky Mountain chooses not to be sanctioned, we can still hold our match at the Whittington Center. They are really not related!

But please, there really isn't any conspiracy that I'm aware of to take over or rake in the millions of dollars made at 3-Gun matches across the nation! (That was sarcasm! 3-Gun is not a money making venture, at least for us. We do it for the love of the sport!)

We want to be able to keep on doing it, and the NRA may be able to help us keep our "competition" guns so we can continue to play and exercise our 2nd amendment rights!

Denise

I was quoting lawman.

[Charles Bond]

Before we get too far into this perhaps it would be prudent to look at the NRA BOD and ask ourselves to identify any director who is identified with any action shooting sport. I really want to believe like Bruce Gary that NRA is in this for all the right reasons. But before we surrender what all of us have accomplished to an organization that has not here to fore concerned themselves with practical shooting for civilians, I would like to see some meaningful assurance of real devotion.

[ShaunH]

Before we get too far into this perhaps it would be prudent to look at the NRA BOD and ask ourselves to identify any director who is identified with any action shooting sport. I really want to believe like Bruce Gary that NRA is in this for all the right reasons. But before we surrender what all of us have accomplished to an organization that has not here to fore concerned themselves with practical shooting for civilians, I would like to see some meaningful assurance of real devotion.

+1

[kurtm]

Do you guy,s live in a cave? The "father" of 3-gun matches is "on the Board" Robert K. Brown; who instigated the S.O.F. World Championship 3-Gun match back 1980. R.K. Brown is the owner of S.O.F. magazine, and was the first one to move the S.O.F. match to Raton N.M. at the Whittington Center. Jeff Cooper was on the board up untill his demise, and he is the father of IPSC. It would seem that the NRA has had a few board members that might understand "action shooting sports". does this mean they will be the next great 3-gun/multigun governing board? who knows, but they do have board members that know action shooting. KurtM

[Charles Bond]

Thanks Kurt. I had actually over looked Mr. Brown. I was of course aware of Jeff Cooper but he was not actively shooting competition during his service on the NRA BOD. It should not be too much to ask that an organization like the NRA who desires to speak for all gun owners actually have people on their BOD who shoot competition and shoot such matches on a regular basis.

[AFH]

Everyone should go back and read SGDM's post (#53). Best post on the thread about the relationship that is developing between the NRA and the 3-gun community at this time. Instead of going off on rabbit trails chasing invented or imagined problems with this new association, thereby sowing seeds of discontent, I would recommend that we "trust, but verify" the intent of the NRA. Their proposal, as you have heard from those at the meeting, is to support the 3-gun community.

The NRA Tactical Police Competitions are a great step in demonstrating that support. Yes, they are LE only and equipment is restricted to duty gear, but so what? These matches will lead to improved capabilities and performance in the LE community. The BRM3G will be donating a couple of shooter slots to the NRA TPCs to encourage the officers there to come out and shoot with the rest of us. I hope other matches will do the same.

As Denise has already stated, a little patience is warranted. I believe many of your questions will be answered once the NRA has time to get its information together and come out with their sanctioning process.

Andy

[Charles Bond]

Andy I agree with your "trust but verify" statement but then you fall off of that path. Post 53 was the response to the post Bruce Gary noting the efforts of USPSA to unify the 3 gun matches. Bruce has worked very hard for a number of years on bringing the various matches under one umbrella and as he notes has gained little traction. Along comes the NRA and everyone is excited.

Maybe it is just me but if NRA wants to sanction matches, they can just do it. There is no need for them to do anything other than just say that they are going to sanction the matches. If they are not interested in standardized rules and it is not going to cost anything, they can just affix the NRA seal and be done with it.

Several of us suspect that there will be other catches that come with the NRA sanction. Once upon a time the federal government started out providing states with dollars for educational and transportation funding. As time went by, in order to receive the federal funding, the states had to jump through certain hoops which grew progressively more and more restrictive.

I am not against the announced plans of the NRA to sanction these matches. But I will point out that there is not likely to be a free ride here. Ultimately the larger 3 gun community might find it prudent to decide rather quickly if they are going to ban together and if so under what tent. The 3 gun community has some choices here but let us not pretend that there will be consequences as to which tent we choose.

The NRA is about protecting 2nd amendment rights. The NRA can do that without hosting or promoting or providing a sanction to shooting events since the fact that there is a legitimate sporting purpose seems for some reason to be important to their stragedy. Competition rifle sports can and perhaps should be governed by an organization that is closer to the shooting sports than one which is mostly concerned with political actions.

[Larry White]

For years the competion side of the NRA, especialy the rifle and pistol marksman matches were made up of WWII and Korean vets. Those people wanted to compete like they trained, thus the stand here shoot there mentality, none of this shoot and scoot run around like your hair is on fire with loaded guns for that bunch. And that is not a bad thing, it was thier game and thier rules. Sadly, those folks are leaving the range, too few of them left. Where are thier replacement? The NRA needs to replinish it base, or get a new base. The replacements are us, and we shoot practical pistol and 3 gun. Now we do need the NRA for a lot of reasons, and the NRA needs us for a lot of reasons, one of them might be surival. I think that gives us the pull to say now its our game and our rules. We need each other, lets open our minds and find a way to make this work--------------Larry

[kurtm]

Charles, I don't see this as anything other than a mere bump on the 3-gun road. IF and that is a big IF they decide to throw around a whole bunch of silly rules, the matches just won't be well attended....kind of like the situation we are in now with some National level matches. If they are cool about it they will be successful; great more matches, but to think that "other" match directors won't bail on the NRA the minute it gets hinky..IF it ever does, is just plain short sighted, and I happen to know a few who don't do matches at the moment that certainly will if it all goes south! KurtM..or whom ever I might be today

[uscbigdawg]

Kurt - I have to whole heartedly agree. The presumption is that NRA is gonna swoop in, ATTEMPT to take control and run matches how they see fit. I can without hesitation say, that scenario would never happen only because if the rules are lame, then like good conservative folks, we won't go. The people will dictate what they spend their money on, not the NRA, not USPSA, not IMGA. If it's cool and is something that people want to do or support then great! Frankly, if it's another set of rules or authorization to use the NRA logo on the match application/advertising, I'll give it a review and decide whether or not to spend my 'Benjamin's'.

In the meantime, let's work on the matches that are broken that we want to keep (see US-MG Nat's).

Rich

[busyhawk]

All I can say is one of the new NRA board members wrote me and asked for some input for the NRA rules. Never have I been asked from any other organization! I believe in the NRA and they have my vote until they prove otherwise!

NRA member for sure...

Support or loose!

SGM ( R ) Scott Hawkins

At least the NRA is looking at matches and looking for input before they just go out and buy a match! :-)

[NMBOpen]

NRA's "American Rifleman TV" has been covering 3 gun recently, with editor Bryce Towsley talking to Bruce Piatt, James Darst and Tate Moots at the FNH match in Missouri. I take that as an encouraging sign.