Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Red dot for Tact Optic only


bigbrowndog

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thats another one!!!! I really see a trend developing here. :surprise:

BTW, Scott you forgot to finish your thought, throw in the 1x optics into TO and the variables in Open and lets shoot!!!! thats what you meant to say,............Right!!!!

trapr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with RS.

Allow 1x optics in LTD. Leave TO alone. TO is by far the most popular and competitive division based on the sheer # of talented shooters participating at most matches. I'm sure there are exceptions . . .

LTD is under represented and participated. Allowing 1x optics will breathe life into that division. Good irons are superior to a RD at 100+ IMO. Why not let them in LTD?

Edited by chp5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats another one!!!! I really see a trend developing here. :surprise:

BTW, Scott you forgot to finish your thought, throw in the 1x optics into TO and the variables in Open and lets shoot!!!! thats what you meant to say,............Right!!!!

trapr

If it shakes things up sure, lets give it a try.

Can you imagine the whining that will occur.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I have read this thread and the letter in Frontsight, I don't understand what the problem that is trying to be addressed is.

Is the concern that tactical aggregate has become too popular and has reduced the participation in limited or the participation in open?

It seems to me that people who want to shoot open will do so because they like the full open experience (box mag shotguns, open pistols)... leave them out of this discussion.

If the concern is that limited is dying ( or we need to give the 1x red dot guys a home) then let's make a positive change to limited and allow 1x un-magnified optics.

Or if more seperation is required between limited and tactical, make the limited guys take their comps off (when I started shooting USPSA 3-gun I don't think comps were allowed in limited) and run max 30 round mags...

Is the argument that true 1x variables costs too much money? I don't accept that argument since there are several true 1x that cost less than an Eotech and with some careful shopping I didn't pay much more for a KDot than I would have for an new Eotech.

Is the argumet that variables aren't tactical?

That's wrong for sure. Didn't the military just start handing out Elcan Specter DR scopes to the Special Ops guys? (At least one guy I shoot matches with regularly just got his).

So why would I mess with the most popular division in USPSA 3-gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys but I shoot scope-tact and enjoy it. The cross section of shooters in the division is one of the toughest. We were all witness to that at the RM3G.

If I wanted to shoot open then I would fix up a shotgun w/ mags or speed loaders and a pistol that held 28 rounds.

If you are interested in creating a level playing field challenge, one that will test talents and not equipment, then I suggest that someone organize 3-gun tournament sometime in the next year or so with specific equipment rules.

You have to remember....it's about the enjoyment! Something about shooting 1x only sounds challenging but not fun. If you organize this match I will be there but leave scope-tact alone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I have read this thread and the letter in Frontsight, I don't understand what the problem that is trying to be addressed is.

Is the concern that tactical aggregate has become too popular and has reduced the participation in limited or the participation in open?

It seems to me that people who want to shoot open will do so because they like the full open experience (box mag shotguns, open pistols)... leave them out of this discussion.

If the concern is that limited is dying ( or we need to give the 1x red dot guys a home) then let's make a positive change to limited and allow 1x un-magnified optics.

Or if more seperation is required between limited and tactical, make the limited guys take their comps off (when I started shooting USPSA 3-gun I don't think comps were allowed in limited) and run max 30 round mags...

Is the argument that true 1x variables costs too much money? I don't accept that argument since there are several true 1x that cost less than an Eotech and with some careful shopping I didn't pay much more for a KDot than I would have for an new Eotech.

Is the argumet that variables aren't tactical?

That's wrong for sure. Didn't the military just start handing out Elcan Specter DR scopes to the Special Ops guys? (At least one guy I shoot matches with regularly just got his).

+1

So why would I mess with the most popular division in USPSA 3-gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I slept on it and gave it some thought and came to the conclusion that it might entertaining to open a can of whoop. Will start looking for a 1x scope! Can any scope in the magnification range of 1.0-1.9 work? My leupold is a 1.5.

It's amazing what you do with a scope in Limited! :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember who said it and I don't want to go back and read all the posts to figure it out, but the gist was, "there is really no competition in Limited anyway so just do away with that class"

There is actually much more competition in Irons than other classes, there are at least 4 people who at any given time can win the division, and then there are 5-10 spoilers that can affect the final turnout by winning stages and taking points away from the top shooters. in TO there are maybe 3 people across the country that can outright win the division, and then 3-5 spoilers. Taking into consideration the numbers per total shooters it is categorically tougher to do well in Irons than in any other division, then take into account what my buddy the buzz gun shooter, SGDM said, and its a much tougher division to shoot given the stage and match setup.

Besides the purpose is to have more definition between divisions, and by doing away with magnification in TO and making it simply "T" you now have the definition that everyone seems to be looking for.

This topic is obviously filled with good solid irrefutable information, look at how many pepole have used good judgment and changed their own minds, and now I really feel we have a trend developing!!!!!

trapr

On a side note: I'd like to see if we could make a rule that simply states "only targets of 3.5moa or larger can be used for rifle"

Edited by bigbrowndog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm late in the battle but I just read that FS last night on the master seat and found this thread today.

It's funny how the shooters for the change are in dyeing divisions, i'm not going into details on

that as it could violate forum rules !! :roflol: I understand your trying to a save them but sorry it's

inevitable, I'm not worried about the evil TacScp going away. 2/3 of every match is TacScp and growing.

The heat is in TacScp, how many times has a TacScp shooter won overall.

I dont shoot a variable but getting rid of them "now" would be like banning Glocks in production, why even have

the match then with 15 shooters left. Iron sights, 1600's there were none, 1700-1800's ft bead or crude irons, 1800-1900

adjustable peep sights, late 1900's red dot, 2000+ scopes (not scientific data).

Edited by P.Pres
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limited is not a dying division, many matches have about the same number of competitors in Ltd. as Open. I think the only reason there was a mass exodus when TO was conceived is because it doesn't take as much practice using magnified optics. There are a lot of great marksmen that shoot TO, but a big majority of the shooters in that division would have a real difficult time without magnification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PPres, they had scopes in the 1800's so its "old" technology as well.

Irons is not a Dying division, its simply a division that requires dedication, skill, and aptitude. You may want to reread the topic because several good optic shooters have jumped on the do away with TO crusade!!!! that kind of sounds like what we heard from the Dallas area last year :roflol:

It is reassuring to hear that you agree that the tcscp division is the evil division and that you would not be worried when it went away, good for you. :cheers:

your reference to aTacScp shooter winning overall has no bearing however, because all the divisions keep separate scores, however when tacscp and taciron were combined there were several times that the TI shooter won the overall title and then someone I don't know Whooooooooo??????? made a public announcement that it would only be fair to have them separated so that they wouldn't keep getting beat by an Iron shooter, and so it became common practice.

But back to the topic, I really see a trend developing here!!!!!!!!

Trapr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or if more seperation is required between limited and tactical, make the limited guys take their comps off (when I started shooting USPSA 3-gun I don't think comps were allowed in limited) and run max 30 round mags...

Is the argument that true 1x variables costs too much money? I don't accept that argument since there are several true 1x that cost less than an Eotech and with some careful shopping I didn't pay much more for a KDot than I would have for an new Eotech.

So why would I mess with the most popular division in USPSA 3-gun?

Picking a few of your comments...I think limited should be limited. 1 sighting system (irons or a non-magnified dot), no comps, 20 or 30 round mags only. That way all the guys who just bought M4s (thanks to the #1 gun saleaman of all time) can compete too.

Millet DMS, illuminated 1-4x costs $200, or less. Less than most of the Red dots.

You would not want to mess with the most popoular division! I think a LOT of energy has been spent trying to tweak equipment rules to increase the number of shooters at any given match. Arguably the two most popular matches have their draw based on the total match experience (location and course design being part of it) and NOT the classes. While it would be boring to vanilla all the matches, an argument can be made for the divisons as applied to the various matches as well. Does anyone in their right mind think that if Benning had Limited (no comps and iron sights only on all guns) and Open only next year that they would not still fill up? Heck no!. Even though I shoot TO, if I wanted to go, I'd make my guns fit the "box" and go. How the matches try to equalize the prize tables between 3-5 divisions is a pain that matches must deal with, and most shooters do not consider it too much.

EVERYONE has a bias, and while the majority of the posters on this thread with strong opinions are obviously top tier competitors, some credence must be afforded to looking at, say the top 20 shooters, and then the rest of us. I'd be willing to bet a months worth of doughnuts that if the top 20 shooters at any given match were asked to write the division rules for "next year" as they see best, we would end up with at least 20 versions. There are top competitors that do not go to certain matches because there is not enough pistol, or too much pistol, or not enough 3-gun stages, or too many three gun stages, etc. Especially the sponsored shooters, have pressure to perform in order to keep their sponsorship and as such, there exists, at least, the motivation to craft a division to what they perceive as their strengths. The rank and file of 3 gun shooters who (and no disrespect meant in any way) most of the top tier shooter don't talk to a whole lot at the matches, typically offer a very different perspective. They shoot 1 or 2, big matches a year as their vacation from real life. They want STABILITY of rules so that when they finally get the good parts, after 4 or 5 years, they can stick with them for 10 years and maybe take a class, or add a match instead of re-fitting for a different division. For the majority of the competitors, it is about having an enjoyable match; maybe shooting well on 2 or 3 stages; shooting the same stages as the pros; hanging out with like minded people; and fondling the newest offerings from vendors. If anyone really knew how to have a one division match, sold out, with everyone happy, it would already have been done!

So, with all that said, I hope one of the IMGA matches tries "this" (being RDS with irons, or true limited, or Limited/1x/Open) next year as an experiment so some true measure can be afforded to the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'll jump in...

If you can't hit the target at 400 yards, (after a couple of honest attempts) leave it and take the miss. you might just get a better score than the guy who bangs away at it for 30-45 seconds and finally hits it. same goes for the target that is in the shadows or slightly obscured by flora/fauna and is hard to see. (or maybe check to see if there is another place that slightly obscured target may be more visable from if its allowed.)

my warped mind has morphed this thread into this "idea";

open-same same, anything goes

limited-1 FIXED any-power scope (ie; no variables), BUIS allowed.

standard-true 1x optic (red dot or otherwise, but no turned down variables) or iron sights

and just for the record, this big of a division equipment change would have to be announced 2-3 years in advance...

just a thought :rolleyes:

jj

(edited for "true 1x optic")

Edited by RiggerJJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I slept on it and gave it some thought and came to the conclusion that it might entertaining to open a can of whoop. Will start looking for a 1x scope! Can any scope in the magnification range of 1.0-1.9 work? My leupold is a 1.5.

It's amazing what you do with a scope in Limited! :ph34r:

I agree, it is quite amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJ, I like and understand some of your ideas. but the one that says take your chances at the target no matter how its placed, I think is not a sound one, MD's should consider target placement for ALL divisions, not just the most popular or the one they shoot in, I posted earlier that I would like to see a minimum of 3.5moa for each target used for rifle, but it would still need to be seen plainly at any time of the day, it really requires just a bit more effort to accomplish this, and the shooters will be much more grateful for the effort.

I agree and fully realize that taking your best shot and then giving up and moving on MAY be to the shooters best advantage, but thats NOT why we shoot at it, we shoot at it to HIT it.

On stage 8 at your match I was completely suprised to see that I had 100% on it for HM Irons, because I had watched some very good shooters both optic and Iron do a whole lot of missing and decided that gamerwise it would be more prudent to shoot and move on. If you are suggesting that type of behavior then why have the clause in your stage briefing to make an HONEST attempt at all targets, or be penalized for gaming!!!! in addition to the miss penalty.

Just let the shooter decide whatever they want and see if their choice was wise or not.

I can honestly tell you had that been the case this year, I would have fired one round for the targets and left, and been much better off for the effort.

As for your division choices I think they have merit.

Trapr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trapr,

I finaly made the effort to read the entire thread and I must say there are some really good

opinions both ways in this one but I have another suggestion that would solve all this.

First of all, the yellow backer boards like we've seen at Ft Benning and Rocky Mountain should be standard.

Secondly , you know I am a TacScp shooter, I believe that the targets at most matches are not hard enough

for all of the $ variable scopes. I belive Rocky Mountain is the premeire rifle match for scoped rifles with shots out to

600yds. I dont think that the targets should be so easy that anyone with a good scope could just sit there and plug

away at targets without any long range practice, positions should be less comfortable also, more off hand maybe.

My proposal is to have different courses of fire for the different rifle divisions. For instance, irons shoot all of the

targets with the yellow backers 150-350, TacScop shoots the yellows as well as the orange backers out to 500-600.

Open shoots from a different position where props are not used as support, ie. bi-pod. No no one can bitch ?? :rolleyes:

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I slept on it and gave it some thought and came to the conclusion that it might entertaining to open a can of whoop. Will start looking for a 1x scope! Can any scope in the magnification range of 1.0-1.9 work? My leupold is a 1.5.

It's amazing what you do with a scope in Limited! :ph34r:

I agree, it is quite amazing.

Oh Crap !! I just got that !! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My proposal is to have different courses of fire for the different rifle divisions. For instance, irons shoot all of the

targets with the yellow backers 150-350, TacScop shoots the yellows as well as the orange backers out to 500-600.

Open shoots from a different position where props are not used as support, ie. bi-pod. No no one can bitch ??

Someone will always bitch. I just put a sticker on one of my ARs...Shoot More, Bitch Less.

So kind of like Golf, we have the tournament Ts for Open, the Men's Ts for Tac Scope and the Ladies Ts for Irons. I like that! :surprise: I think there was a shooter at RM3G asking for Ladies T's for Seniors, but he was shooting He-Man and that just would not work. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...