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

[00bullitt]

Some MD's have the misconception that making a match challenging and hard is a good match. But truth of the matter is....the top shooters are still gonna be the top shooters and most likely are still gonna win while the underclassed shooters get frustrated and mad and talk of how ridiculous the stages were and maybe not return. We've got a local range around here that does that. He continues to try his best to screw over the top shooters by using his crazy ideas in his stage design. But in the end.....the few shooters he is screwing with are still the winners and everyone else's fun ended long before. There are ways to challenge everybody....but at the end of the day......the top shooters will still be at the top. And like Kelly said.....probably by a larger margin. More distance is not the answer for a way to challenge them.

[M ammo]

Places to shoot 3 Gun, are hard to come by.

100 yard ranges can be hard to come by. And 300 or 300+ yard ranges still harder to come by.

I do hear you when your saying ,, not to accommodate the lowest common skilled individual. Those folks, need to get up to speed.

Some hard truth is that,,, More people than we want to talk about, just need to learn how to correctly zero their rifle. If they did that. The 300, 200 and 100’s yard targets would be much easier to hit.

Long range gravity seems to kick in at about 220. I might say that is when real rifle shots, and skills start coming in to play. At some point or range, you start to think,, 300,400,500???? At what point is this not a 3 Gun match, but Sniper match? Or some other type of rifle match?

We have a large gray area in 3 Gun. But that is OK that is what keeps 3 Gun interesting.

Jim M ammo

[Mark Stephens]

I am a relative newcomer to the 3 gun world. I've been focused on 3 gun for less than a year and only have two big matches under my belt, 2009 SMM3G and 2009 RM3G. I think the furthest target at SMM3G was just over 300 yds and i shot that match with my aimpoint. It was what i had a the time. I love the aimpoint but i new for RM3G i needed a variable power optic to be competetive in tac scope so i bought a Meopta. I busted my ass all summer to become a much better rifle shooter, get a really, really good zero, load 77's and figure out my ballistics to hit the shots i knew i was going to have to hit at that competition. I ended up doing waaay better than i thought i was mostly because of my ability to hit the longer range targets. I saw people shoot at the long range targets that were much more experienced rifle shooters than myself that crashed and burned. They didn't do their homework. Maybe they didn't have a really really good zero, and they probably didn't practice what they probably knew they should have. This is what i love about 3 gun. You have to work hard to be competetive and make the tough shots. You can't just go out and buy fancy guns and go shoot. Your shooting faults will become apparent pretty quick on challenging stages. Realistically i think around the 400 yd mark is perfect for 3 gun. Most of the targets will end up being between 200 and 300 but i think you need those father targets to add some real difficulty and reward the shooters that will work hard to be prepared.

Don't get me wrong, i love to run and gun with my rifle but i want to shoot both ends of the spectrum when give the opportunity.

Also a +1 for the target size issue, 3 MOA targets sound great. The targets are RM3G that had the yellow backers you could see really well for the most part.

Just my .02 cents!

Mark S.

[Mike P]

Which match is it that has all of these really long shots being discussed? I try and shoot the bigger (and smaller too) matches in the southeast and there are not that many shots over 300yds, much less 400yds.

At BRM3G there were lots of targets between 100 and 250, but I doubt there more than 6 or 8 past 300 for the whole match (this year anyway). Ft Benning usually only has a few past 300 too. The max range at the last few CTI's was 300. Larue only had a few past 300 too. Thats not to say that those closer targets were gimme's, because they weren't, it just wasn't distance that made them a challenge.

As far as not making it so hard the new guys quit, I say BS, in fact, I'd say make the matches MORE physically and mentally demanding if you want to appeal to the younger shooters.

[Mickster]

M ammo got it right. I voted for the 300 but feel that 5 to 500 (or more) is just fine.

With the number of big 3-gun matches around the country to go to each one should utilize what that range can offer. One venue may be able to offer a set of shooting problems utilizing distance that another may not. For example, DPMS goes out to 200 and that's a great match. RM3G goes out to 600 and that is a also great match.

My point is, how dull would it be if Match Directors put an arbitrary limit, like say 200 yards, on rifle shots for all 3-gun competitions?

I say to all Match Directors. Put those targets so they can be seen at all times of the day, put them wherever the venue can accommodate them and us 3-gunners will rise to the occasion... eventually.

[nm3gnr]

I voted for 300 as well, but I beleive 300-400 is very doable by most three gun shooters.

I also know that having a place to practice the longer distances comes into play, as most people do not ( I do).

I agree with Trapr and Kelly that the top shooters will clear a 100-350 or so yard stage much faster than other competitors and that is what will seperate them on the score board. A time out really frustrates competitors.

I like shooting the carbine from point blank run&gun and out to 600. Anything in between is ok as well.

Finally, It is up to the MD of the matches and I will run what I brung on whatever they have setup. If I personally do not care for it, then I will not attend again.

[00bullitt]

Really....in a nutshell....it all boils down to....is that you get out of this sport what you put into it.

[bigbrowndog]

Mick, made the comment that if we make MD's stick to a set distance the stages and match would be "boring" I really can't agree with that statement. Target distance does not make a match boring or interesting, its the whole thought and layout of the stages and match, we here are speaking of stages that were difficult or we saw people time out on and can feel their frustration from, but it doesn't mean the MATCH was boring or more interesting because of those stages and that we didn't have fun being at the match.

Having targets partially hidden by shadow or foliage, or unpainted or small in size, or otherwise difficult to see, or way the "F" out there is not the big problem. the problem is insuring that EVERYONE has the same opportunity to see, the target. Individual skill and sometimes luck, will allow the shooter to hit the target, and as long as everyone has the same visual conditions or ability to see the target then there really should not be any complaints. But when some have the sun at their back and others the sun in their face, or the target in light and then in shadow, or painted and then unpainted, or backers up and then down, or RO's calling hits and then not, that is where the complaints arise.

The easiest way I can see to alleviate these inconsistencies is to make the target "hitable"for everyone and let individual skill separate the shooters, if someone can come up with another way, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it. Just remember that it needs to be consistent for EVERYONE.

Trapr

Edited September 10, 2009 by bigbrowndog

[uscbigdawg]

Really....in a nutshell....it all boils down to....is that you get out of this sport what you put into it.

Amen to that brotha.

Rich

[ken hebert]

+1, and to add: if you limit yourself to 300 or under and you are comfortable with that.. How are you going to know just exactly what you can do? Unless you push yourself and your abilities..., that is all you will ever be.

[TonyH]

The easiest way I can see to alleviate these inconsistencies is to make the target "hitable"for everyone and let individual skill separate the shooters, if someone can come up with another way, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it. Just remember that it needs to be consistent for EVERYONE.

Trapr

SOF in the years I shot it never had any targets past 300 meters, except for one year & there was one stage you could shoot at 400 & 500, but that was your choice. You could shoot at 100, 200 or 300 it was a point thing for farther hits. This was always a very fun & challenging match for only shooting 300 meters.

[bigbrowndog]

Tony, I think that kind of goes along with my saying that MD's should allow shooters to pass up on a target w/o additional penalties other than the miss, if they have figured out a way that its to their advantage, then why penalize them for it. We should always be looking for advantage, or a better way other than the way one person dreams up, when it comes to solving problems. Its what pushes others to do better or solve better.

Trapr

Edited September 10, 2009 by bigbrowndog

[springy]

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?

The key here is "if the iron sight shooters can see em". It would be really interesting to shoot a match that had targets at 400-450 yards - THAT AN IRON SIGHT SHOOTING MATCH DIRECTOR SET UP!!!!!

.02

michael

[bigbrowndog]

the flip side of that, and this discussion. Is how much would optic shooters enjoy a match if the targets were difficult or impossible for them to see, because that type match would not be difficult to set up. It would be even and fair, because everyone would have the same chance, little or none!!!!!

How long do you think that type 3 gun match would survive??????????

The choices are make the targets doable and seeable, make them long and impossible to see, for everyone, OR continue on the path we are on and deal with the criticism that comes with inconsistencies.

Trapr

Edited September 10, 2009 by bigbrowndog

[Mike P]

the flip side of that, and this discussion. Is how much would optic shooters enjoy a match if the targets were difficult or impossible for them to see, because that type match would not be difficult to set up. It would be even and fair, because everyone would have the same chance, little or none!!!!!

How long do you think that type 3 gun match would survive??????????

The choices are make the targets doable and seeable, make them long and impossible to see, for everyone, OR continue on the path we are on and deal with the criticism that comes with inconsistencies.

Trapr

Make them long and "impossible", it'll help drive innovation. They won't stay impossible for long.

[Revopop]

Again, in this sport, it's not that the best are better long range shots than everybody else, it's that they can do it faster and more efficiently than the rest.

[Beretta Lover]

I vote for 450 and less.

A really long time ago I shot from the berm on the KD range at Wainright at 500m with irons (our company was doing this) and hits with irons on A2s were very doable. If I can actually see something that far out I feel confident that I can hit it with irons (even).

The Marines use irons out to 600.

I disagree with the idea that action shooting sports should model themselves after the "what our guys carry theory" idea of lets only use 14-16in barrels and red dots or irons because that's what guys in the field carry.

Someone actually sent this idea into front sight? We should all shoot red dots because thats what Army guys use?

I think the military is better equipped today specificly because of the advances of action shooting and the commercial shooting market (red dots on every rifle now being normal in the field is a direct result of action shooting technology)

If you go to the new USASOC and airborne museum in Fayetteville you will also see photos and actual fielded weapons on display with big honkin Miculek and Gunstar looking muzzlebreaks on them. This suprised me when I saw them during my visit. A couple of these were on 10inch guns if I remember. Maybe the USASOC guys figured out comps on their own?

My guess is most places in the east probably never shoot past 300 other than Benning (beats me, I shoot a couple local matches and then Benning annually)

Maybe in the west you could go further than 400 routinely. I switched from a 16 in barrel to a 20 specifically for the increased velocity and easier accuracy at distances. I have a short barreled poodle shooter in the safe if I feel like using one of those too.

[Sterling White]

Trapr,

You already know the answers to your questions! When I roll out to a match I'm looking for diversity. Am hopeful that a match will have a little bit of everything including in your face to long range, wide open targets to tight shots, uphill and downhill, and the use of natural terrain.

Don't make me pull out my big can of Awwwww! And ask if you want a little extra cream with your mocha latte? I shot the same pine cone up on the hill thinking it was target just like you did! I can't prove it but think Miller had something to do with it...did see him back there laughing!

[sp edit]

Edited September 12, 2009 by Sterling White

[ryan m]

To me, the three gun rifle is an all around weapon, and matches should help you learn combat skills with that weapon. If you are shooting too far, then you are getting into specialized equipment that defeats the all around rifle idea. I think the same can be said for shooting too close. I have been to a lot of matches where people can blow through the close targets but cannot make hits at 200-300 yards.

From the muzzle to max effective range of an AR, and everything in between should be the goal of the match designers - within the limits of the range facilities, and with the majority of targets under 300, or even 100 yards, as reality seems to dictate in the civilian world.

I would like unknown distances.

I would like targets based on the human torso to any range, and targets the size of the head to 300 yards max. That size should be reasonabally visible for most people, and if it seems difficult for an iron sight shooter to see, then it will be countered by the slow time on up close targets by the optics guys. That is a realistic benefit of optics.

600 yards is a reasonable maximum.

Setting long range targets makes it difficult to do this practically.

Edited December 18, 2009 by ryan m

[Chills1994]

I don't have a dog in this hunt...as I doubt I will ever go shoot a big/major 3 Gun/Multi-gun match, but this is how I see it:

If the MD or match staff let it be known ahead of time what the stages are going to be like...for example, "expect 400 yard rifle shots on five inch diameter steel plates"... and people still fill out a match application form and send it along with their match entry fee, then that is the match experience they just bought.

Caveat emptor.

[SinistralRifleman]

I want stages where you have the option of shoot out to 500 yards, or you can advance forward 200 yards on the clock and engage them closer if you think that will help you.

[AlamoShooter]

if 3 gun had a 300 yard limit , I would have never gotten interested. When or if a limit on yardage gets going ....So will I

I am getting sick of what seems to be .....Lowering the Bar on so many sports.

Like Mr. Chills says

Let the range of the shots be know before the applications come in

What is interesting about an inacurate gun?

Edited December 19, 2009 by AlamoShooter

[Doug H.]

if 3 gun had a 300 yard limit , I would have never gotten interested. When or if a limit on yardage gets going ....So will I

I am getting sick of what seems to be .....Lowering the Bar on so many sports.

Like Mr. Chills says

Let the range of the shots be know before the applications come in

What is interesting about an inacurate gun?

I think it's interesting watching someone else shoot it, but sometimes a little sad. I have shot at several matches with 400+ shots and I would hate to see someone try to regulate distances less than 300 yards. I have ROed several large matches and some folks that come out are clearly not prepaired to shoot that far, but why should the rest of us have to be limited by the poorest competitors? I enjoy the long shots even if I can't hit every one in a reasonable time frame.

I was at a match in CA that had some long difficult shots and Busyhawk and I were debating whether to game the stage and just launch a shot at the hard ones. Robert from R&R heard us talking and asked "do you think that you could hit those with all the time in the world?" I said yes and he replied "well then shoot them or pack your stuff up and go home!" Scott and I both took the tough love and made the hits.

Doug

[AlamoShooter]

Ya know

It does not take Sigman Fraud to figure out the slant on the "Vote" choices

I did not like the vote picks ,.... But 'All of the above' would be a good vote

Edited December 19, 2009 by AlamoShooter

[Chills1994]

It's not the first time that a poll/survey about 3 gun competitions here on the forums has been skewed by the OP's selection of choices (and whatever his or her agenda might be).

I doubt it will be the last.