Poll- What do you believe should be the Max rifle range used at a 3-Gu

[AK74]

I vote for 300 yards, hitting the A zone at that range requires marksmanship and a good rifle. But not the specialized equipment and skills shooting at 600 meters requires.

[1chota]

that is a big jump from 300 to 600+! Rocky Mountain, Johnson 3 gun, Blue Ridge Mountain, and Larue, all had targets at 300-400 yards and a bonus at 500 or 600. all of this can be done with the guns we shoot. if the ranges are limited to 300 yards, then so be it, but it is a nice challenge to shoot targets that are intermingled between the mid 200 to slightly over 400 yards.

1chota

[Jesse Tischauser]

I think the majority of the shooting should be under 400 but you gotta seperate the men from the boys somehow. 400-600 does just that. Heck if the iron sight guys can see 'em it should be easy with a scope right?

Edited September 6, 2009 by jtischauser

[el pres]

I think the majority of the shooting should be under 400 but you gotta seperate the men from the boys somehow. 400-600 does just that. Heck if the iron sight guys can see 'em it should be easy with a scope right?

+1

This "game" is not the Military, we are not shooting Beretta's and pump Mossburg's either. It's almost boring

to watch non practiced shooter's shoot 300yd Larues from a nice stable platform with a scope. If your gonna shoot

a scope then it should be at an occasional farther distance. These are rifles, right ? I love the complaining at matches

like the Rocky Mountain,"there's something wrong with my gun, last week at the local match I was a rifleman"..

[bigbrowndog]

I H8 polls, but I do think this topic is a gud 1!!!!

<400, and targets should be at least 3.5moa, men and boys should be able to make the shot the better ones will simply do it faster. TIME should be the challenge not the target.

trapr

[caspian guy]

I agree with trapr on this one. The seperation happens by itself. Greater skill and ability will allow those shooters to perform the task more quickly.

[mpeltier]

This is a "Game" as stated before. A "Game" that invites those of all ability levels. I understand the MD's temptation to place targets waaaay out there for the sake of making the match "Challenging". Each match it seems they are getting farther and farther into "sniper rifle" territory. Which is in my opinion driving the bus more and more towards better and better (more expensive ) optics and fewer iron/non magnified sighting systems. Unfortunatly many if not most competitors do not have the opportunity to ever shoot at these distances except at these larger venues. Seems this phenomenon would not be conducive to the advancement of participation in our sport overall, but the matches fill up and Tac-optic is getting bigger and bigger. If the trend continues we will soon have open and Tac-optic with few left in any other division. I agree that the time would seperate the men from the boys and a little less emphasis on extreme distance may be better. I voted 300. 600+ is just a bit too far.

[J-Ho]

Personal preference is for 400 yards and in. But if you want to go further I say do it. Just let everyone know what to expect.

[Mike P]

Target definition is more important to me than distance,( within reason) but the max distance should be whatever the match organizers say it is. Just set the targets where they can be seen.

[Big Bore]

I think the majority of the shooting should be under 400 but you gotta seperate the men from the boys somehow. 400-600 does just that. Heck if the iron sight guys can see 'em it should be easy with a scope right?

+1

This "game" is not the Military, we are not shooting Beretta's and pump Mossburg's either. It's almost boring

to watch non practiced shooter's shoot 300yd Larues from a nice stable platform with a scope. If your gonna shoot

a scope then it should be at an occasional farther distance. These are rifles, right ? I love the complaining at matches

like the Rocky Mountain,"there's something wrong with my gun, last week at the local match I was a rifleman"..

I didn't participate in this poll but I agree with Trapper that this a good topic. I agree with both of the comment above also. I think the majority of shots should be below 400. But we don't seem to have many shots between 75 and 200 indispersed between the long shots to break things up and make you think about your holds. As far as shooting positions go we need to make them more challenging and give the shooters some choices and make them think. For example: You can engage these targets from anywhere in this "rock pile" or from this "log" etc.

As far as shooters not having the opportunity to shoot at long distances before the match. I think most guys are not willing to go out and find somewhere to shoot longer distances. Instead they run out and buy the newest, bestest whiz bang gadget that will do the job so they don't have to.

But, I guess I am spoiled living out here on the edge of a desert where I can find areas where you can out distance a .50.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Big Bore

[00bullitt]

Are these rifle matches or carbine matches? In my eyes.....they are differnt. The majority of what I see at matches are carbines and I think about 300 yards should be max distance. Anything over should be a bonus target. To make it tougher to shoot 300 yard targets.....challenge the shooter with tougher shooting positions rather than putting them further out. Just my .02

[bigbrowndog]

I have been told that our large matches are National level events and so, they should be made more difficultevery year!!

I cannot disagree more, the challenge should be the skill level. It is in almost every other sport, Football does not make the field larger or goal posts closer together or the first down further every year, baseball does not place the bases further or the pitcher closer, Car racing does not change each racetrack and add a few more turns, they all simply remain the same and let the level of skill for each competitor raise the challenge.

for every one sport you can name that changes its National level event every year, I can name 5 that do not. I'm not saying the stages need to be exactly the same every year but they do not need to be made harder, we need to remember that even at National level events, every level of competitor is there.

The skill level should be what raises the challenge not the target.

trapr

[00bullitt]

I have been told that our large matches are National level events and so, they should be made more difficultevery year!!

I cannot disagree more, the challenge should be the skill level. It is in almost every other sport, Football does not make the field larger or goal posts closer together or the first down further every year, baseball does not place the bases further or the pitcher closer, Car racing does not change each racetrack and add a few more turns, they all simply remain the same and let the level of skill for each competitor raise the challenge.

for every one sport you can name that changes its National level event every year, I can name 5 that do not. I'm not saying the stages need to be exactly the same every year but they do not need to be made harder, we need to remember that even at National level events, every level of competitor is there.

The skill level should be what raises the challenge not the target.

trapr

Damn Trapr....WELL SAID! I totally agree.

[ken hebert]

600+ meters- hand loads, match triggers, free float match barrels, expensive optics, sub 1 MOA groups and the skills to put them to use are what this sport is all about.

with the wording of your poll, we can clearly see where you'd like the voting to go.

My opinion is for the match director to use whatever is available and make the match challenging.

I'd rather drive 6 hours to shoot 100 challenging rounds than 3 hours to shoot 200 hozer rounds.

[Merlin Orr]

Your house - Your rules - You (the MD) set em up how you want to set them up. If people don't like the match they will let you know but their non participation.

With that being said I probably bitch and cry about various things including scoring methods, targets used, sanctioning bodies, distance to far targets, distance to close targets, shooting platforms, shooting positions, time of day, ambient temperature, weather in general, to tall props, to short props, to low ports, to tall ports, uphill shots, downhill shots, ground to hard, ground to soft, rocky footing, the RO not looking at me right, my lumbago, sore knees and arthritis and the Mexican food gas pains from the night before...........................etc......etc................ more than most....

Long, short, hard shots or hoser... - I am Finally beginning to understand that the best thing to bring to any match is a good attitude.

[GentlemanJim]

I will play with the rules and the stages I am given...and have a great time of it

But I must say...if you are not shooting at some targets at least 400 yards...It aint NO RIFLE match

A good match will have a mix of targets from point blank...to 500 yards and at least a bonus at 600 or so

Measure the complete skill set...if folks are bitching about long ranges...you may have it just about right

Jim

[Sterling White]

A good 3-gun match would have the distances specified for this poll and stages with corresponding criteria.

[smokshwn]

I vote for 300 yards, hitting the A zone at that range requires marksmanship and a good rifle. But not the specialized equipment and skills shooting at 600 meters requires.

Not to beat you too loudly, but would you care to elaborate on the specialized equipment guys like Trapr, Kurt, Scott, Pat, Kelly, et al use to 4-5-600 yd targets in Limited?

That being said, I agree with many of the sentiments posted above concerning good stage/course design. Pure distance does not make up for poor stage design. The other side of that coin is that regardless of how clever the stage design there is no direct replacement for distance. Yes you can make targets smaller however there is no replacement for wind, terrain etc.

[el pres]

The other side of that coin is that regardless of how clever the stage design there is no direct replacement for distance. Yes you can make targets smaller however there is no replacement for wind, terrain etc.

I see your starting to catch on !!

This poll is flawed in that it is missing a hugh area of yardage, say 350-450, and the OP has worded the

choices to suit. Aside from what opinions may be out there, including my own, I dont belive an MD should

ever be limited to a certain distance by some rule somewhere !!

Edited September 6, 2009 by P.Pres

[AK74]

This poll is flawed in that it is missing a hugh area of yardage, say 350-450, and the OP has worded the

choices to suit. Aside from what opinions may be out there, including my own, I dont belive an MD should

ever be limited to a certain distance by some rule somewhere !!

You are right I should have included an under 450 category.

The wording next to the categories is mine, just give your opinions when you post.

This Poll is not about a rule to force a MD to do anything (I am a new local match MD).

I am interested in what shooters want to shoot and why.

Thanks (everyone) for the feedback, lots of good posts here.

[Sterling White]

As a new MD you will sooooooon find out what people like and do not. Feedback is almost instant at the match! Are you working with natural terrain or within berms?

[1chota]

I think the majority of the shooting should be under 400 but you gotta seperate the men from the boys somehow. 400-600 does just that. Heck if the iron sight guys can see 'em it should be easy with a scope right?

+1

This "game" is not the Military, we are not shooting Beretta's and pump Mossburg's either. It's almost boring

to watch non practiced shooter's shoot 300yd Larues from a nice stable platform with a scope. If your gonna shoot

a scope then it should be at an occasional farther distance. These are rifles, right ? I love the complaining at matches

like the Rocky Mountain,"there's something wrong with my gun, last week at the local match I was a rifleman"..

I didn't participate in this poll but I agree with Trapper that this a good topic. I agree with both of the comment above also. I think the majority of shots should be below 400. But we don't seem to have many shots between 75 and 200 indispersed between the long shots to break things up and make you think about your holds. As far as shooting positions go we need to make them more challenging and give the shooters some choices and make them think. For example: You can engage these targets from anywhere in this "rock pile" or from this "log" etc.

As far as shooters not having the opportunity to shoot at long distances before the match. I think most guys are not willing to go out and find somewhere to shoot longer distances. Instead they run out and buy the newest, bestest whiz bang gadget that will do the job so they don't have to.

But, I guess I am spoiled living out here on the edge of a desert where I can find areas where you can out distance a .50.

i guess my memory is fading. i shot the Larue match, Johnsons 3 gun , Missouri FN match, Rocky Mountain 3 gun, and DPMS. With the exception of DPMS, all of the others had a mixed bag of rifle shots, ranging from the 'in your face" out to around 400. DPMS is limited with the ranges they have, so nothing past 200. all of these matches were fun and challenging. bonus targets out to 500 or 600 are "bonus" targets and one does not have to shoot at them. i have watched people shooting the "handicapped .223" and smack targets with regularity at 500 and 600 yards. The closer ones they smote just as well. and, they use a variety of equipment. carbine length barrels don't seem to slow some folks down.

as to finding a range to practice the long shots, i am lucky; i only have to drive 60 miles to get to one.

i haven't found a match this year that i griped about the stages. i certainly have bemoaned my shooting ability, tho.

1chota

[bigbrowndog]

I would tend to agree with the above posters,................................so long as you look at it from an extreme viewpoint and can keep your opinion the same, would you approve of targets at 1000 or 1200yds using the same equipment you currently have????????????? To see if a opinion is correct or valid it should stand the extremes, be they really close or really far. If you would feel the same about 500 or 600 yard targets, as you would about 1000 or 1200yd target using the same equipment, then go ahead and do it, but remember that as has been stated elsewhere, if you feel that way then let there be no extra penalty for the shooter deciding on his own to not shoot a target and take a miss for the target, if you have more shooters opting for the miss than you do for taking the shot then you have designed a stage that is TOO hard, for the common equipment and skill set.

Too many MD's design targets to be shot at but then do not allow parity in the shot, and try to FORCE competitors to shoot at them and then get pissed off when its to the shooters advantage to NOT hit it. If you want a shooter to hit the target or at least make an honest attempt then make the shot doable for ALL!!!!!

I truthfully believe that if MD's would try the shots they set up with a red dot or irons then all this "bitching" (as some would call it) would end. If they can't make the shot after 3 attempts in 20 seconds then they need to rethink the target.

Trapr

Edited September 6, 2009 by bigbrowndog

[Bryan 45]

Give me out to 400. I typically have no trouble out to about 275, unless there is a lot of wind, so I need the extra range for a challenge. (Limited or HM shooter here.)

[Sterling White]

Guess I should have said....feedback is almost instant when you post here on BE.

+1 Trapr