Red dot for Tact Optic only

[Revopop]

It is truly amazing how much juice one letter to the editor in Front Sight has generated in so little time.

Perhaps that is an indication that some form of this idea has more appeal than we originally realized.

Edit to add: Hour 8, page 3.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Revopop

[Charles Bond]

Time has passed, there has been a large leap forward with respect to equipment development and gear.

Exactly! And that will not stop. If we allow only a 1x optic within a year someone will have one on the market with a true 1 mil dot to help with distance shots and the next year someone will have a red dot scope that has a bright .75 mil dot. Of course when that happens you are going to have iron sight shooters crying "foul" because the optic will offer a larger advantage than today's 1x and ask for their own non optic division to return.

No one has mentioned iron sights but they too have come so for as there is nothing "iron" about them but rather fiber optic and plastic. You can always tell a new shooter since he or she is the one shooting a shotgun with out a plastic front sight and even that is hard to find since most of the newer guns come with them aready on the gun. How about those cross hair front sights for rifles which under a hood have multiple pins just like bow sights dialed in for different distances? No one thinks a front sight you can easily loose off a shotgun or a delicate rifle iron sight is tactical.

Altering the division equipment will not stop the equipment race but rather only refocus it. As long as there is enough demand for a better mousetrap, there will be someone who will build it.

[Charles Bond]

It is truly amazing how much juice one letter to the editor in Front Sight has generated in so little time.

Perhaps that is an indication that some form of this idea has more appeal than we originally realized.

Edit to add: Hour 8, page 3.

And when a major match offers this division as a choice and 50 people or more sign up to shoot it, the comments will have lighting with the thunder.

[Religious Shooter]

We are just Trolling around. Nothing more.

[smokshwn]

and some of us are biting.....

[chendersby]

As Charles said, this is just a letter to the editor to front sight.

There has been NO discussion on this by the BOD.

I don't really expect there will ever be such a discussion by the BOD.

Should someone move to do this in a meeting I won't be seconding it and if someone does second it I won't be voting for it.

[Religious Shooter]

I think we should reconize that the RDS has become a preferred sight in real world guns. We should make room for them and more importantly their users.

IMHO:

Allow red dot sights in Limited.

Leave Tactical alone.

Leave Open alone.

[Bryan 45]

When I first read it in Front Sight, I thought it was a crazy idea. After reading 3 pages of intelligent discussion on it, I'm on board! I shoot irons almost exclusively and would welcome the 1x optics to Limited. I can see the pros and cons of rolling TO into Open- but they mostly center around the shotgun. I think by allowing the 1x optics into Limited, it would greatly increase the number of participants in that division, even though I do not feel the RDS offers any advantage over good irons under match conditions.

I know why Trapr is all for it, it would give him more shooters to beat!

[mpeltier]

I think the majority of us here feel the same, ditch TO and just go with open and 1x sight, if you have a variable and don't want to go to open then just sell it on the Classifieds, heck I'd buy one just for a hunting scope.

Ditch TO? Give me a break. Tactical is the largest division there is in USPSA MG.

Tactical Optics is the largest division in the outlaw matches.

And you guys want to get rid of it?

+1

All this to get a couple new guys to our matches?? How many would this turn away?? More than it would draw is my guess.

Whats next fellas??? Cowtipping??

[P.E. Kelley]

I think we should reconize that the RDS has become a preferred sight in real world guns. We should make room for them and more importantly their users.

IMHO:

Allow red dot sights in Limited.

Leave Tactical alone.

Leave Open alone.

If it were to happen I feel RS has the divisions lined out correctly.

I am betting this will happen as I finally broke down and spent real money on some tactical glass, now we eliminate the division!

I do not believe this will generate additional Iron sight shooters but may add RDS shooters to the dying division.

The USPSA multigun Nat's only has 4 (FOUR!!!) Standard division shooters on the roster.

Patrick

[uscbigdawg]

Looks like I picked the right time to start practicing Limited.

Rich

[00bullitt]

Looks like I picked the right time to start practicing Limited.

Rich

I really don't think there is anything to worry about. If this ever gains enough steam......it will take a while before it goes anywhere.

This is just discussion based on a suggestion in Front Sight. If there is change as discussed in this thread....I will embrace it.....if not.....I'll carry on as I was. Either way it matters not to me. There is always good and bad in new change. I feel I could be competitive regardless.

[kurtm]

For a long time now, I have heard that we need to limit Tactical optic (and Limited ALWAYS seems to get lumped in on the deal) to 30 round magazines as the rifle is just to close to an open rifle. There is no real division between an Open Rifle and a Tactical Optic rifle. Presently there is even less distinction as many open rifles are just sporting a SINGLE variable power optic. All we have done is make Tac-optic, the entry level OPEN GUN. All these debates revolve around "just the rifle", even though we don't have very many "rifle only matches". IPSC recognizes that there is hardly any distinction and intelligently kept the TWO divisions OPEN and LIMITED.

We are now faced with a great new idea that would further delineate Tactical Optic and Open, that at the same time would delineate Tactical Optic and Limited, and yet the same guys who decry that "there is very little separation and something must be done", are the first to say that the 1X red dot division is a terrible idea. It seems that so many people want the rules to favor their own gear and do not look at the good of the sport!

There are WAY more red dotted ARs out there than any Scoped ARs and I know more than just a few guys who say I don't want to have to buy a scope to be able to compete with what I have. I would bet that we could really grow "Tactical Optic" if it were to change into a 1X red dot division. I would allow the variable guys to still use their scopes as long as it was a true 1X, and the power ring was "sealed" with a thick paint ( just like car racing) on 1X. If the seal was broke...off to open.

We now have a way to delineate the 3 divisions, Limited, Tactical ( 1X sight)*, Open. This would spread out the shooters more evenly in ALL divisions, as some would still want to use their variable power scopes as variables, and some would decide to go with a 1X sight of some kind, and some would drop into Limited as Chris stated. Allowing Tactical Optic to continue as it is today does not allow for any distinction between an open rifle and a Tac rifle, and as a lot of you have pointed out....that just isn't right. We now have the way! KurtM

*The reason I say 1X sight is that if you have a true 1X scope and it is sealed it doesn't have to glow. Kind of like the Weaver 1X-3X, Simons Turkey scope etc.

[mpeltier]

There are WAY more red dotted ARs out there than any Scoped ARs and I know more than just a few guys who say I don't want to have to buy a scope to be able to compete with what I have. I would bet that we could really grow "Tactical Optic" if it were to change into a 1X red dot division. I would allow the variable guys to still use their scopes as long as it was a true 1X, and the power ring was "sealed" with a thick paint ( just like car racing) on 1X. If the seal was broke...off to open.

This may be true for the "Outlaw Matches" (I hate that phrase) with shots out to 400-600yds but for every USPSA match I have attended a non-magnified optic would not be a penalty at all. I have shot matches at SFPC, CFRPC, Frostproof, Kentucky state 3-gun, Area-6 3-gun in both Alabama and Georgia as well as the FL sunshine games. Each and every one would have been fine with a non-magnified optic. Maybee some others clubs would have longer stages that would hurt a less skilled marksman without magnification, It seems to me that lack of skill (or perception of whats required) may be the bigger issue. Even at ft Benning, each of the past 4 yrs I have used 1x on all but one stage each yr. And have smoked stages that i should have used more power but forgot to turn the ring up. And to those that say they dont want to buy a scope to be able to compete, theres always limited.

Just out of curiosity I am going to start a new thread so as not to drift this one to see what other clubs longest shot is for rifle stages.

[bigbrowndog]

Actually you could have a long cat tail made that would lock the power ring on 1x, and the RO checks at the beginning of the stage. Its a done deal!!!!!

Kurt brings up a valid point We just came back from Norway and the ERC, where the WINNER in Open, had ONLY a scope on his OPEN rifle and the addition of a bipod. Daniel Horner used his TO rifle with the addition of a bipod and did quite well.

So saying that all this extra gear would be needed to be competitive is BS!!! I mean come on a 100.00 dollars or so for a bipod and you're ready to go.

It all hinges on the fact that so many people already feel that there needs to be more differentiation between Open and TO, well this accomplishes it very easily. Besides next year the US will host a level 4, IPSC shotgun match, how soon after that do you think it will take for a level 4, IPSC rifle match????????????? Do you really think that they'll have a TO division, just because its the largest division in here in the US,..........only!!!

I can hear it now, the IPSC crowd will say, well I guess you should stayed with Limited or Open.

Charles, As for the Iron sight crowd crying foul because of a perceived advantage over a .75 dot, nobody seems to care what we say anyway so why would it matter more then

Mark you say if they don't want to buy a scope there is always limited, using the new 2 class format, the same can be said for those that want to shoot variable power 1800.00 scopes, if you want to there is always OPEN.

Trapr

Edited August 29, 2009 by bigbrowndog

[kurtm]

Why do the Tac-Optic guys look at a single 1X dot or scope as a penalty??? It isn't a penalty, rather a way to have a clearer division between an open rifle and a tactical optic rifle. No one is triing to penalize anyone, and if Mark finds that the average range for U.S. clubs is 200 and less I don't see why anyone would be opposed to Tac-Optic going to a 1X sight system. I know a "red Dot" is WAY cheaper than a Schmidt and Bender short dot, Elcan DR, Zeis Vari-point, Swarovski Z6I so the guy who already has a dot, or is thinking about shooting his first match with his dot gun now has a way to play evenly within Tac-Optic instead of having to buy a mega $$ scope to feel able to compete.

[mpeltier]

instead of having to buy a mega $$ scope to feel able to compete.

Exactly to my point. Why do they "feel" its neccessary if it is not. And if its not why force a competitor into open with a variable optic. Just to force a more of a pointed comparison in the rifle equipment?

Cost also seems to come up in this discussion. There are some very usable variable power scopes that are less expensive than aimpoints. I have not met those people that feel they need mega $$ scopes to feel able to compete. I would probably need a translator.

[Charles Bond]

The east coast guys need to keep in mind that the west coast guys routinely shoot more distance at even local matches than we do at our larger ones. Think you do not need magnification at an east coast match? Shoot Blue Ridge where you are past 350 yards on most all of the stages.

Keep in mind that tac optic was created because of the deires of older shooters to add an optic to limited guns because of aging eyes. What was unanticipated was that so many would leave open for this division. IMO the reason for leaving open was that many of the open shooters did not have open shotguns and we are going to see many more going back to open due to the advantage they percieve in the Saiga Shotgun (note I said "perceived" and if you want to argue whether it is real or not let's not drift this thread to do it).

That the big dogs like Daniel, Trapper, Kurt, and Taran can win open with a TO rifle does not influence my thinking. What does influence my thinking is the cry we are going to get from the older shooters who desire the magnification in a division that does not force them to spend $2000 on a shotgun and the uproar from shooters who are not going to like the fact that they paid for equipment they can no longer use in TO. And despite the fact there has not been any limited shooters post here, those of you who believe that this forum reflects a fair cross section of USPSA membership are mistaken. To illustrate this, how many of you who have posted are more than 55 years of age which the last time I checked was about the median age of our membership?

Note I am not saying "no" to this division. What I am saying is show the USPSA BOD that it will work by setting up the division in a few major matches and then petition USPSA to add it as a division much in the same manner that single stack broke out of Limited and Limited 10. Of course if USPSA would embrace rifle only matches the interest would be easier to gauge since the decision would be based soley on the rifle selection as opposed to the complication which arises from what shotgun or pistol which is matched in the division.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Charles Bond

[kurtm]

Charles.."No limited shooters post here"???? Are you serious??? Maybe you don't realize that Limited is about all I shoot. In the last 9 years I have shot exactly ONE tac-optic match, the rest have been....well....limited! Trapr and Pat shoot heavy metal...also a limited division...you know, no optics! As a 50 year old Iron shooter, I may not represent a USPSA cross section, but I do feel I represent the iron sight shooters in 3-gun!

Mark, you are taking this WAY too hard, P.M. in bound KurtM

[bigbrowndog]

Also Charles, you say to put the division in a few matches and see if it works out. i don't recall that approach being used for TO. As for "NEEDING" magnification to shoot a match nobody needs magnification Iron sight shooters prove that at every match, but when MD's place targets further and further, and make them harder and harder to see, then yes Magnification is NEEDED!!

A properly set up match following decent guidelines for target presentation, will allow ALL shooters magnified or not to compete under fair conditions. i really hate bringing this back up, but I truly wish US Md's would attend an IPSC match just to see what proper long range target presentation looks like. That goes for IMGA and USPSA MD's.

Shooters will always have a division that their equipment will fit into, they may not like the division but there is one available, and as has been duly noted, you do not NEED a 2000.00 shotgun or 3500.00 pistol to compete in OPEN. Most pistol target presentations at a 3 gun or MG match are short range hoser type ones its not like you NEED a dot on your pistol to make the shot, and although I wouldn't use one you can buy a Remington 1100 and set it up for Open for what you'd pay for a good Benelli.

What I am hearing is that so many want more distinction between the classes, and what sounds like a great idea to me is do away with TO make it Tactical division and only allow 1x magnification, it allows Irons and optics to form one class, a much bigger class, and if you want to shoot more magnification then shoot Open.

Trapr

[D.Hayden]

I still don't understand the irons shooters clammoring to get rid of scope tactical...

Their Division just has so little following.. might as well force people there?

Just allow the 1x dots in Limited and be done with it.. or just get rid of limited and open and HM.. lol

[bigbrowndog]

BerKim, you're a MD aren't you?????

trapr

[D.Hayden]

Sorry.. I just couldn't resist.. but to me.. it makes just as much sense..

Just think no more whinning about 'our prize table is too small' yada-yada-yada.. there'd only be one..

[DeweyH]

I have tried to read all of this so if my point has already been stated I apologize in advance. Instead of pushing variable power into Open, where regardless of actual need there will be a perceived need to upgrade the pistols and shotguns, why don't we combine the 1X dots with iron sights and let the other divisions stay as they are. One reason there is a need to have powered optics is because the shots are getting farther and farther. If it is our desire to get the average guy, with the average Iron/1x dot in to the game, why don't the Match designers give him an average shot that he can make. 400 yards is not something the average guy can do.

The situation we have is feeding on its self. The shots get longer so we get more power so the shots get even longer... Even if we get the 1x division started, people won't stay if they can't make the shots. They will either quit or jump to the variable power option and we are back to where we are now.

I started out shooting Irons because it was all I had. I left because Irons make up only 10% or less of the competitors and because the shots were getting out of my 1x range. I still like shooting my irons but not at 400 yards in a match. If the shots were manageable and the number of competitors increased I would probably go back.

Berkim, I must have been typing while you were.

Edited August 30, 2009 by DeweyH

[Big Bore]

The east coast guys need to keep in mind that the west coast guys routinely shoot more distance at even local matches than we do at our larger ones. Think you do not need magnification at an east coast match? Shoot Blue Ridge where you are past 350 yards on most all of the stages.

Keep in mind that tac optic was created because of the deires of older shooters to add an optic to limited guns because of aging eyes. What was unanticipated was that so many would leave open for this division. IMO the reason for leaving open was that many of the open shooters did not have open shotguns and we are going to see many more going back to open due to the advantage they percieve in the Saiga Shotgun (note I said "perceived" and if you want to argue whether it is real or not let's not drift this thread to do it).

That the big dogs like Daniel, Trapper, Kurt, and Taran can win open with a TO rifle does not influence my thinking. What does influence my thinking is the cry we are going to get from the older shooters who desire the magnification in a division that does not force them to spend $2000 on a shotgun and the uproar from shooters who are not going to like the fact that they paid for equipment they can no longer use in TO. And despite the fact there has not been any limited shooters post here, those of you who believe that this forum reflects a fair cross section of USPSA membership are mistaken. To illustrate this, how many of you who have posted are more than 55 years of age which the last time I checked was about the median age of our membership?

Note I am not saying "no" to this division. What I am saying is show the USPSA BOD that it will work by setting up the division in a few major matches and then petition USPSA to add it as a division much in the same manner that single stack broke out of Limited and Limited 10. Of course if USPSA would embrace rifle only matches the interest would be easier to gauge since the decision would be based soley on the rifle selection as opposed to the complication which arises from what shotgun or pistol which is matched in the division.

"No Limited Shooters Post here" Sorry but I post here and I shoot Limited pretty much all of time. Except for my first RM3G when limited and Tac Optice were scored together and the occasional local match where I drag out my scoped LR 308 to make some extra noise. Now that I think of it, at that RM3G I rarely turned my scope off of 1x (I kept forgetting)and had no issues hitting the long range targets.

Unfortunatly I happen to be only 40 and have good eyesight so I don't fit into the average USPSA age group but I feel I too represent the limited shooters in the 3 gun arena.

Hell, throw in the reddots and the EO Techs and lets shoot.

Scott