Brainstorm--- How to attract more shooters to Limited?

[Jim Norman]

I also think a minimum size of 4 moa targets should be used for long range, lately we have been stretching the distances without increasing the target sizes appropriately.

I agree wholeheartedly, but I would probably go a bot larger. A standard USPSA Metric Target is 18" wide, that is 6 moa for 300 yards. I would make this the point, at which targets diminish. in size. At 400 yards, this target becomes 4.5 moa. still a target you can see IF there is some contrast. We do need to make a few decisions here. is this sport to be only there for the young and visually adept? Or can some of us older more than a little blurry still bother to show up?

I shot Irons until the bifocals became a problem. I shoot Limited in Pistol and do OK (due for a new prescription) by having a single focus lens set that allows me to see the front sight on an pistol pretty clear and the targets more than a little blurry. If we had a target criteria that allowed for me to see the plates at that distance, I could go back to Irons. I have several good HM rifles, but all I do with them is play now. For matches, I am in Tac-Ops as it is the only way I can be competitive if there is any distance involved.

I have thought also that we could have a Greatest Generation division, Equipment is limited to: M1 8-rounds .308 or 30-06, 1911 7+1 in .45 SS and 12 ga pump, 5 +1 (or whatever a stock trench gun is. All Iron sights. Not that is HM!

Jim

[Chris]

practice, practice, practice... Remember, this is a competition.

[bigbrowndog]

Sorry Charles, but we don't NEED another division!!!

BTW, my comment about a 4moa target could be misconstrued it should be 4moa x 4moa at the least, this is a challenging target and one that should be able to be hit regularly provided it can be SEEN.

trapr

[kellyn]

I do not see a down side. Other than the worry that we here in the USA may not be ready to compete Internationally

at (IPSC) matches in the Standard division. (all of five guys)

Patrick

Hey I resemble that remark!

Allowing 1X optics in Limited does not really increase the size of iron sight shooters in the U.S. It only increases the number of divisions which allow optics. And in the end I think the 1X optic will kill off irons as there will be a slight advantage to using a 1X optic over irons.

Plus the U.S. will not be preparing its shooters for any future World Shoots in Standard division. That maybe does not mean much to some but it means a lot to me as I want to see the U.S. do well in International practical shooting. When we get the first World 3 gun Shoot it is going to be a mess trying to figure out who should be on the Standard Team.

Based on my observations, Limited/Tac Iron does get the short end of the stick at the prize table even when allowing for its relatively small size. And I am not refering to just one match. The only place where I would seriously shoot irons is a real IPSC match (no prizes just ever lasting glory), USPSA Multigun nationals (some prizes and ever lasting glory) and DPMS (ever lasting glory and shot at $3000). Other than that, thanks but no thanks.

I don't have a good answer to this question.

[kurtm]

"When I saw another top Tac Iron shooter running his iron sights in Tac Scope division just so he could pick from a better prize table"

Says a lot about how tac iron is treated doesn't it?

The fix??? Well it is right before our eyes as it always has been, mix the two divisions back together at the end and have one big prize table. This is the way SOF always ran, RM3G untill 3 years ago and SMM3G untill 3 years ago. Durring those times Iron had quite a following, it was nothing to see 30-35% of "tactical" shooting irons. When that stopped so did iron sight class. Also about 3 years ago it became in vogue NOT to paint steel between squads and just let them go gray making it hard for the iron guys to see a target at all, let alone hard for optic guys too. In the old days of 2006 they painted steel for each squad and irons shot first on the painted targets...now 3 years latter I am told there is just no way to paint.......SO lets recap, limited prize table (excuse the pun), and invisible targets = no irons or 1x dots.

I think from now on I will bring two rifles to the matches, and after I see the stages then decide which "division" I will shoot in....or I might just decide the good old 1X irons need to be shot in optic...after all my 50 year old eyes need real thick glasses, and I am told all the time that any lens is an optic

[Bryan 45]

Why the change to seperate prize tables for each division?

(like I said, I'm kind of new at this)

[kurtm]

SMM3G changed because the "optic" guys whined a lot and didn't like to get beat by Irons, and the folks that were putting it on had more of a USPSA mind-set, different divisions for different guns...etc.

Denise or J.J. would be better to answer the why for RM3G as Their decision seemed to be centered around one shooter, but that is just the way it seemed. How about it J.J., Denise?

BTW J.J. how is the Benelli? KurtM

[RiggerJJ]

My Benelli? Last PM I sent ya said it all, PFM!??? Cleaned it and ran a couple hundred rounds thru it, no problem...shot a local match, no problems... still has me baffeled...

RM3G changed to totally seperate divisions (we call em classes) because of the inclusion of more multi gun stages. Before the irons and optics each had a 100% on rifle stages only, and were melded together into Tac class. but now with all the multigun stages we have with with rifle lately, (6 stages last year, 4 of which were multi gun) we figured they had to be seperated. kinda like comparing apples and oranges...not really sure why you are saying we changed it for one shooter...but you are my mentor Kerk! (and that other miller we sometimes get a fleeting glimps of...) -splain it to me, maybe by PM??

I see the argument in both directions, and agree with both. I have shot Tac Iron with scoring both ways. personally I like it totally seperated. to me the prize table is way down the list on why I shoot 3gun at all, but what I am seeing here is hardcore iron shooters are leaving the iron classes BECAUSE they perceive that the prize table doesn't favor them. Sad state of affairs is all I got to say about that...

we take the total prizes $ value, and divide them among the tables by percentage of shooters. if the match has 50% Tac Op, 25% Open, 10% HeMan Op, 7.5% Tac Iron, 7.5% Heman Iron shooters, then the prizes are distributed in the same percentages.

Maybe Andy had kinda the right idea? one table, every walks in order of finish, order of most shooters in a class? (ie; 1st place, TO, O, HS, TI, HI. then 2nd place TO, O, HS, TI, HI... etc etc...) but I see that being somewhat problematic because the last place TI shooter (around 15 place, with a final percentage in his class of around 20% or so) walking the table right before 16th place TO, who would have a final percentage in his class of around 70%. not fair in my book. (I think that is the way Andy did it, if I am wrong please correct me)

typing that up gave me an eppiffany... (OH GOD, here it comes...

one table, everyone walks in order of final percentage in their class??? (not match points, but percentage)

As for the red dot inclusion in TI, I can honestly see its viability. What I don't see here is someone that shoots TO saying they would do it if it was available.

maybe Denise can shed more light here, she is doing conferences with parents tonite, so it will be later...

jj

BTW, there is mention of not painting targets. do they need to be painted if they have the yellow backers we use???

Edited October 20, 2009 by RiggerJJ

[bigbrowndog]

JJ, your epiphany sounds like a cool idea!!!! how would you break out ties?????? As for painting targets, my vote would be yeah, it helps.

Hope to see you both at HPSC.

trapr

[cheryl]

Are there any matches that use 4 moa targets?

Edited October 20, 2009 by cheryl

[springy]

Paint the long range targets BLACK at the start of the match. Put something white behind it: corrplast, sand, lime, anything white. Shoot on it all weekend - the backing stays white, the target stays black. No time spent running down range, no complaints because you can't see them, no expense for extra paint, no complaints because the 5th shooter has a totally different target presentation than the 1st shooter, irons and scopes shoot whenever their number comes up in the squad.

Also, how many actual long range targets are in most matches? 5? 10? A bag of play sand from Lowe's is a dollar - 1/5 of one entry will buy all the sand and the 2 cans of paint.

4 moa targets? 4" at 100yds, 8" at 200, 12" at 300, 16" at 400. I've yet to see a target other than 10". There is a real good chance you would pick up a lot of iron shooters if you did the 4 moa targets because you wouldn't need a telescope just to find/see the target.

4 moa would be too easy for the scoped crowd? They could all hit them at 350 yards in the same elapsed time? nope, the good guys would still hit them faster, and still win. The difference is everyone would hit them, and everyone would be real happy with the match.

IMHO

rant off

michael

[mike_pinto]

So is this really all about the prize tables?

I could care less about it but I know it is very important to some folks. I like the idea of 1st place in each go, then second, so on. That will get people to try and game the smaller divisions just to get a higher finish. I am going to stick to my irons no matter what. It was pretty satisfying hitting all of the rifle steel at RM with the irons. Hell, I just love the game and will play it no matter what.

See you all in Mesa, Columbia Mo, OKC, Raton, and wherever else there is going to be a big match.

Mike

[ken hebert]

You want a bigger participation in limited and HM, make it a limited/HM-only match. Yup, these guys are right that it's easier to run optics. But, if you dont have the ability to do it (like you cant run an open gun at SS nats) then you sort of force shooters to test themselves and see just what they can do with good ole fashion irons.

Hell, I'm in.

[StealthyBlagga]

...typing that up gave me an eppiffany... (OH GOD, here it comes...

one table, everyone walks in order of final percentage in their class??? (not match points, but percentage)

JJ

IIRC that is EXACTLY the way the SMM3G was run up until about 4-5 years ago. I liked it. Under the new method, the 7.5% (in your example) of the prize table allocated to Tac Iron is below the "critical mass" where the prizes are appealing to top shooters.

Edited October 21, 2009 by StealthyBlagga

[Benelli Chick]

Honestly, the non-tactical scope tables have been bigger than their percent. Each of the tables had a rifle, a pistol, open had 2 rifles because of size, the next shooters had similar prizes to the mid high shooters on tac optic. So really...last couple years at RM3G iron tables had more than their appropriate percent.

JJ is right about separating the rifles in Tac Optic. With multi-gun stages, giving Tac scope a 100% and Tac -Iron also, when the rifle portion is small and then one of the divisions gets 100% for a 40 second slower time, and then every person in that division gets tons of points. It just seems like comparing apples and oranges.

I like JJ's epiphany, also. It's similar to Patrick Kelley's idea as well. We'd have to give some thought to the winners of each division. Maybe a split table at the top and then after the top 5% in each division, it melds into one giant prize table!!!! I do see trouble with the fact that the Tac-Scope shooters will end up with lower percentages at the matches Daniel shoots! (Have I mentioned lately that he's freakishly good??) And eventually, another great shooter could freakishly skew results in another division.

As far as I can tell, someone is always going to think it's not fair!

Finally, I think yellow backers are better than white. In the sand and sun, the white can almost dissappear!

I'm not sure this is anything other than jibberish as I've just talked to 53 parents about their students and am slightly vegetative!!!

[Jim Norman]

Backers for targets are a good idea. I think the answer is to take several into the field and study them in several lighting conditions ranging from bright sun to heavy overcast and rain. Then decide. Contrast is what we are after, Black steel agians a light background. Don't make the backers too large.

Jim

[Benelli Chick]

We've checked them out in trees and sand berms, and I, personally, really like the dark targets against a yellow/gold backer with either a white splash plate or the white card on the MGM's. With the three different colors, in the different light conditions, everyone seems to be able to see at least one of the colors, but that is just my $.02.

[RiggerJJ]

Backers for targets are a good idea. I think the answer is to take several into the field and study them in several lighting conditions ranging from bright sun to heavy overcast and rain. Then decide. Contrast is what we are after, Black steel agians a light background. Don't make the backers too large.

Jim

been there, done that. been using them for 3 years or so. bright yellow is by far the best color, about 4-6 inches past the edges of the target face. the plastic corrigated yard signs (18x24???) do the job nicely, usually without any trimming. some targets lend themselves to sticky velcro'ing the backer right to the back of the target itself. (thanks for the tip, Travis!)

and we use 12 inch targets from 300 - 400 yards, 3.5 MOA at 400 or so...

jj

Edited October 21, 2009 by RiggerJJ

[kellyn]

It is not all about prize tables but they are an important factor. When one can recoup the cost of their trip of a major match by placing 10th in Tac Optics with the same prize as 1st in Tac Iron/Limited, there is definitely an incentive to shoot a scope. Another advantage to shooting a scope is you are less vulnerable to weather and light conditions, not to mention the now common unpainted steel targets.

JJ it is not a perception about the prize tables, it is the reality. I believe all the iron shooters in contention would back this up. It is nearly almost always the case (if not always) the case that if one does not win Tac Iron/Limited, one gets hosed at the prize table. And even if one does win, they end getting a prize the equivalent of a 5-10th place Tac Scope shooter. Now if that is the way the cookie crumbles due to numbers of competitors, then that is the way that the cookie crumbles.

I for one don't like the idea of forcing shooters to compete with irons. Heck most can hardly shoot their scoped rifles, particularly at the local levels. The people have spoken and they prefer Tac Scope.

Unlike Kurt, I also HATE the mixed prize table a la SOF and old SMM3G. You are competing in a prize table with people that you are not even shooting against. But I will say that this will push people towards iron sights. Denise, you are right about the effect that Daniel would have on Tac Scope scores. At SOF and old SMM3G, the shooters did not have to contend with someone as dominant as Daniel. If we go back to the old method, you would see him at first place, then a whole bunch of Tac irons guys at 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place etc. beating out guys in Tac Scope who they did not really shoot better than. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th etc guys were just smarter about which division they chose. just chose the right division. This is of course, the problem with the old system. Division selection is as important as shooting.

Ken has an interesting idea about an iron only match. But I don't think it would attract enough shooters.

[outerlimits]

just furnish free optics to the limited shooters! everybody has a simmons 1x5 laying around in the garage!

[bigbrowndog]

The example given of Daniel skewing results in TO, is just as poignant with any of the TOP Irons shooters Johnson/Miller so no real complaint should exist.

The backers are important, but just as important is keeping the contrast by keeping the target black, as it is shot, gray does not make nearly as distinct a contrast as the original black.

And really it is not difficult to paint targets and keep them painted, provided of course target placement is considered with regard to RM3G, no one asks for targets to be placed on inaccessable mountain sides. An ATV seems easily attainable given the number I've seen driven around the range complex.

Trapr

[jobob]

I shoot in tac optics, but I've considered shooting limited once in a while. The reason I haven't done it is because of my old eyes, and the thought of looking foolish blazing away while trying to hit a long range target that I could have easily hit with a scope. If limited was opened to 1x optics I would be more inclined to try it.

[Charles Bond]

Three items as I see it:

1. Age of shooters. As our membership ages, so do our eyes. If you are 55 years old, you are less inclined to shoot irons than if you are 25.

2. Shooting experience. For those of us who are older, most of us started shooting with iron sights because that is the way our teacheres believed we should begin and scopes when we started shooting were a loss less reliable than now. Spring ahead to the last 20 years and scopes are mostly bulletproof and shooters actually in many cases start shooting with a scope from day one. I am not seeing any one take their kids deer hunting using open sights anymore.

3. Prize tables. Whether you like it or not, top down prize tables are going to drive the entries. If it is going to be top down regardless of division, the members are going to stay away from limited. Even if you allocate the tables by participation in a specific division as noted early in this thread by trapper, most shooters feel more comfotable shooting some optic either in open or tac optic since they feel they will get a better prize.

Possible solutions:

A. Give the limited shooters a better shooting position either closer to the targets or rested up. Sort of like the woman's tees in golf. Of course you could have 3 shooting postitions, one for open which would be more difficult, one for tact optic medium, and one for limited which would be easier. This would not have to be a set up problem especially if for a set of longer distance targets the limited shooters went prone, the tac optics shot sitting and the open shooters shot standing.

B. Require the limited shooters to engage less targets past 200 or 250 yards. While you could give them larger targets, this would be problematic from a set up and equipment prospective. Alternatively you could award higher points for limited hits on a target.

C. Award prizes by random drawing instead of order of finish. You could still have a cash prize for winning high overall in a division but if merchandise prizes were not tied to order of finsih and a shooter who finished 75% of HOA in limited had the same chance to win a gun as one in tac optic who finished 85%, the prize table would not be a factor.

D. Take the heavy metal rifles and put them all in limited. Most of these guys shoot without an optic. The power factor difference on the rifle would not put them at a disadvantage on the longer range targets.

Please note that I am not saying I actually advocate any of these solutions and I know for some of these changes to take place USPSA rules would have to be modified. But many of you are shootering matches other than USPSA and the thread asked for "brainstorming"

[Brian Payne]

Rolling all the prize tables into one big prize table would only help the upper echelon shooters in the iron sighted division, it wouldn't do much for the average shooter. As an example: 2008 RM3G of the top 37 shooters with compbined scores (one prize table) there were four (4) iron sighted shooters.

From my perspective, I didn't give up the iron sighted division (limited and Heavy Metal) because I wanted better prizes. I did so because I was having great difficulty hitting long range targets. I could probably have spent more time working on my iron sighted skills, but I found it easier to put the extra work into other facets of the 3-gun game by switching to a scope. This left me the time to work on weak hand shotgun reloads, pistol work, etc..

A good example of this would be handgun shooting. A shooter could take a Glock 35 (just and example) and achieve a certain skill level in X amount of training hours. Take that same shooter with the same X amount of training hours and give him a Benny Hill 6" Fat Free (just and example) and I think his skill level will be a little higher. I find nothing wrong with the Glock 35 but I do find it a lot easier to shoot my 6" Fat Free. I find nothing wrong with iron sights on a rifle, but I find it easier to shoot long range targets with a scope.

Sorry, I don't have an answer for shooter participation other than possibly having long range stages that offer more choices. Targets at 200, 300, and 400 yrds with higher points achieved for longer shots. The better iron and scope shooters could engage the longer targets (getting more points) but the newer shooters could engage the shorter range targets and at least pick up points instead of picking up only misses at the longer range targets. Keeping in mind that the longer range targets would also carry a heavier miss penalty to go along with the higher points. Push the envelope or know your limitations. I would hate to be the person that carries all of those extra targets out there though.

[RiggerJJ]

The example given of Daniel skewing results in TO, is just as poignant with any of the TOP Irons shooters Johnson/Miller so no real complaint should exist.

The backers are important, but just as important is keeping the contrast by keeping the target black, as it is shot, gray does not make nearly as distinct a contrast as the original black.

And really it is not difficult to paint targets and keep them painted, provided of course target placement is considered with regard to RM3G, no one asks for targets to be placed on inaccessable mountain sides. An ATV seems easily attainable given the number I've seen driven around the range complex.

Trapr

Denise and I did conclude last nite, after much discussion and disecting several results sheets, that the "Daniel" factor is a misconception. there are somtimes large spreads between 1st and 2nd place, and sometimes they are much closer. there are others in the sport that are just as able to pull way ahead in a match in their class...so good on em!

I have pretty good eyesight, used to be perfect, I now use lenses to get corrected to 20/20, but its still pretty good. My color vision is spot on. With that said, I honestly cannot see the difference (unaided) between dark grey targets and black targets backed by bright yellow at 200-400 yards. Anyone that can see the difference (unaided) has superhuman eyesight and should be able to hit em one for one...

RM3G used to paint long targets between squads before the use of backers. the backers changed all that because they do provide such a stark contrast. (painting shotgun steel is also a bone of contention on occasion, RM3G will continue to not paint shotgun steel even thou the targets sometimes seem "hidden" in natural terrain). RM3G always has had and always will have targets in trees, in shadows during different parts of the day, on mountain sides, among rocks, etc. Its just the nature of the beast. Target aquisition on the clock is part of the game, and not just long range rifle. yes, in natural terrain it can be more difficult than in nice square berms, but RM3G is not a berm match. We have the biggest and coolest area to play our game in, and we will continue to welcome any input/suggestions. I have said before, I invite anyone to come to Raton the weekend before RM3G and help set up, and I will challenge anyone to find spots for all the long rifle targets that have the same lighting conditions throughout the entire day.

We cannot (yet) control the weather and lighting conditions. the PGA is in the same boat, Tiger may be able to birdie #4 with idea weather/lighting. But the guys that go on that hole right when the wind/rain storm starts just have to suck it up and do the best they can. And the prize table in the PGA involves millions of $$$...

sorry for the thread drift....

Richard, I think you may have misunderstood my epiphany (and maybe it has been thought of before by someone else). SMM3G (and RM3G) used to combine TO and TI by awarding 100% to each class on rifle stages, then combining the two sub-classes. This resulted in one big prize table for tactical. As we have found it doesn't work very well with multigun stages.

My epiphany keeps all classes seperate, but the prize distribution would be by percentage in all classes. a 50.01% finisher in one class would walk before the 50.0% finisher in another. I do not mean to combine the classes, rather, take the entire field of shooters, sort them by percent of finish (not match points) IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CLASS, and send them in that order, top down.

jojob, thanks for your input, I think there are more like you out there, myself included...I would love to try it. I wonder if anyone makes a reddot that is variable in size??? crank it down to 1 MOA for the long stuff, open it up to 8 MOA for the short stuff... maybe a Cmore with different dot modules? Is that against the rules???

jj