bigbrowndog Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 There is a suggestion in the latest Front Sight mag for the Tac Optic division to ONLY allow red dot (1x) optics, instead of the current trend of low to mid power optics 1-4x or 1-6x, etc. If you want to shoot a variable scope you would be placed in "heaven forbid............OPEN!!!!!! I read the suggestion and the very first thing that jumped into my mind was that, 1) there would be a much larger group of shooters having trouble SEEING the target at most matches. 2) Iron sight shooters would not be given the standard answer of "well maybe you should shoot an optic" and 3) Maybe, Maybe MD's would finally do something about those hard to see, hidden in shadows, unpainted, targets. Then I snapped out of it and realized, it'll never happen,........................................................but maybe, just maybe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If it was placed to a vote, I'd vote, Hell Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just so I could listen to the fine Chablis that would follow trapr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike P Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Actually, I think that its a great idea for a number of reasons, brakes/comps too while they're at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I think it would be stupid. But I think making HM 1911 only was stupid. And yet the USPSA board voted to only have 1911's in HM. So who knows? The board may make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) Trapr, When I get the latest Front Sight (usually 2-4 weeks after most) I'll more constructively chime in. That said, when has Tactical division, ever been about what IS tactical? There are NO variables or fixed power, non-battery optics overseas that are issued after all. Oh wait...before I get taken out of context or misread, the previous sentence is an example of sarcasm. Rich ETA: And folks wonder why matches like FTB3G sell out in less than half a second and I'll bet there are slots STILL for MG Nat's. Edited August 28, 2009 by uscbigdawg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken hebert Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 And folks wonder why matches like FTB3G sell out in less than half a second and I'll bet there are slots STILL for MG Nat's. amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Might as well shoot in Limited then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 trapr.. that's suggested for the USPSA Multigun rules? It'll just make IMG the only matches to attend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbrowndog Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) Hey, I just thought it was an interesting viewpoint and that it would be nice to have the optic crowd have to deal with what the Iron sight crowd has had to ordeal with for the past 4-5 yrs. under the guise of "well its just impractical to paint" or "in the real world" Well the guy who suggested it makes a valid point in my opinion. I agree that we do not PLAY in the real world, but the REAL world keeps getting thrown back into our face as an excuse. Besides there really isn't a whole lot of difference between TO and OPEN anyway, especially in rifle, and didn't mr butler "win" OPEN at FB3G with one off, TO gear????????????????? Rich, his point was that although ACOG's and variables do exist in combat, they are grossly outnumbered by 1x optics. As for who would adopt such a rule, USPSA or IMGA, I think it would be nice to have the shoe on the other foot as it were. we had a long discussion about how to set up a match that the advantage of an optic would be negated over an Iron sight shooter, it was really quite easy to do, but if it was the optic shooter would bitch and the match would probably exist for one year only, and yet it seems that its OK to screw the Iron sight shooter, and offer excuses for the lack of consideration when setting up stages. I have been to matches that even in their entry form stated that the match will be able to be shot with an M4 carbine and an aimpoint, and yet good shooters with variables timed out on stages, and when match personnel were asked to show how the match could be shot with such equipment, the request was ignored. So, yes i think it would be nice to have a TO shooter shoot a match with TI or Ltd. equipment or as the gentleman suggested 1x optics and walk away from the match without feeling like you've been taken advantage of. Lets not forget, Irons is one of the original divisions, and if you want to shoot overseas your biggest choices are OPEN or IRONS. Trapr Edited August 28, 2009 by bigbrowndog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Back in the beginning this game was developed as an adjunct to discovering what techniques, gear, etc. was best for combat shooting. As we have traveled down that road it has become a two way street. Gear that initially was seen by many as having no "tactical" application (red dot sights) has become the standard for a working guns. Conversely we find ourselves discussing what should or shouldn't be allowed in a division based on what a soldier might be currently deployed with. Here in lies the rub. In an environment of sport where we develop arbitrary rulesets to promote competition, develop sponsorship, and grow organizations we run into situations where those rules contradict or conflict with "real world" experience. In tennis and golf, no big deal. But in our world it is definitely cause for plenty of controversy. I can see the decision to limit Tac Optics to a 1x optic as pretty solid if the effort is to stimulate participation in some divisions (Limited) and create more performance separation with others (Open). In the sense that it would allow for more distinction between shooter performance and possibly promote a better understanding from those outside the sport (ever tried to explain the difference between Tac Optics and Open to a non competition shooter:blink: ). Imagine this in the sense that sponsors may spread there shooter support out a little more or product development and support may grow. On the other hand the participants may scream about equipment racing hardship and unstable rulesets. Interesting idea the BOD has had......hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 trapr.. that's suggested for the USPSA Multigun rules?It'll just make IMG the only matches to attend... Dave, I disagree to a degree. Since I have been doing this it seems the reason USPSA Multigun is not as popular as IMGA is due to the production quality of the matches. In all honesty the production quality of the match drives this train as there are some pretty diverse rulesets/entry schemes/scoring methods etc. that are used by multigun matches that seem to stay full year after year. So regardless of the ruleset if USPSA Multigun can pull of a panty dropping match this year in Vegas, maybe they can start to establish that level of production and the ruleset will take a backseat as it does in all the other matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) smokshwn... I've been to good USPSA matches, and poor IMG matches (ok - they're all fun, poor = not as fun) . I think there are just more major matches following IMG rules (or a subset of them) For me.. the rifles don't matter that much, like people have said, they're pretty close. But I don't have an Open shotgun or Open pistol.. I know my eys suck, so a scope it is.. so that just leaves me Open? Nope... Quick add: I don't think for any match I've been too.. the rules really mattered that much. Maybe the scoring, but with USPSA using timeplus.. there's not much differences? Edited August 29, 2009 by BerKim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 So the people who want this... don't shoot Tactical in a more than regular basis (80%+ of the time)? Doesn't that just seem wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) Dave, Totally understand the eye thing...but I shot RM3G with my production glock. It's time to buy yourself a Saiga (you can keep it at my place ), and whats a bipod and secondary optic gonna hurt. In all seriousness, by coincidence some of us were talking at RM3G about how there is so little separation between TacOptic and Open. Much of that is due to good shooters, but some can also be attributed to the fact that in many respects there is very little difference in equipment. Even in the last few years equipment quality/focus has developed by orders of magnitude. Without directly targeting divisions by altering stage design, it seems that the easiest way to develop some separation would be in equipment limitations. Either way I think it is an interesting discussion to have....at the end of the day shooters have always voted with their participation and that is what should drive the bus. Edited August 29, 2009 by smokshwn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Way too much stuff i can't buy.. ok .. last thing... Tactical Optics is by far the most popular Division.. why not just get rid of everythign else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 So the people who want this... don't shoot Tactical in a more than regular basis (80%+ of the time)?Doesn't that just seem wrong? Gordon Who says anybody wants it? Read. It has been mentioned its an interesting discussion....it's been mentioned it may stimulate participation.....other pro's and con's have been brought up, many more have not.....but nowhere have I read that someone is ready to impose it tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Who says anybody wants it? Read. So nobody wants it? The guy who wrote the letter doesn't want it? Why are we talking about it if nobody wants it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbrowndog Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) I am, ..........................................only I don't have a venue because we don't have TO division at the HPSC we do allow box mag guns in Tactical/Standard division, ooooooooooooooooo we're such renegades!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Trapr RS, maybe if you quit talking about it, it will go away???????????????NaH!!!!!!!!!!! Edited August 29, 2009 by bigbrowndog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 In reality we talk about a lot of things that may or may not come down the pike. However I now see your logic and have made up my mind. I want it...100% for it...think it is the bestest thing to ever be dreamt up! Let's do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 See. BBD wants it. Somebody wants it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 And you want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) Actually my desire is to always improve...improve my performance, improve my sport, help when I can to improve others...you get the idea. Many times in an effort to improve we have to have discussions about things that cause us discomfort. We all naturally fear change and in an effort to not experience change we avoid even the discussion of change. However as is so often the case change really isn't so scary and with vigorous discussion and debate oftentimes results in improvement. Especially when discussion occurs with the caliber of most of the people on this forum. So since your question above indicated that someone should be "for it" in order to be discussing it..... I am in! Edited August 29, 2009 by smokshwn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbrowndog Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) thats cool Smokshwn, we have a convert, I knew this was a good idea when I read it??????????? I think we have a trend, i just read where Dan Furbee is taking suggestions for the next SMM3G, I think its proposal time!!! We can go back to the good old days of only allowing certain optics that are "Combat" proven none of this Meopta. Swarovski, Zeiss, Schmidt&Bender stuff!!!!!!!!!! Real world optics or Irons, real HM calibers like 45acp not 40SW. trapr Edited August 29, 2009 by bigbrowndog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Well hell I'll follow suit. I don't shoot Limited but... We should get rid of Limited Irons. It's a dead division. Replace it with Limited Unmagnified Red Dot division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) "tactically" it is far from dead....I see several manufacturers with BUIS sets that run damn near as much as a dot sight. So how bout this as a compromise....we keep limited but none of this permanently mounted sight nonsense....irons must have some type of mechanical flippy mechanism in order to compete (and no the aperture flippy thing doesn't count) Edited August 29, 2009 by smokshwn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike P Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 I must admit, that I missed the USPSA reference (Front Sight) sorry, I haven't shot any USPSA multigun in a few years. Damn shame though, the idea has some merit. It seems that the participation in Open division at most of the "outlaw" matches that I get to shoot is pretty slim, actually in some cases less than limited, so why the heartburn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts