BSeevers Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Gremlin? didn't AMC learn the first time?? As a side note innovation leads to better equipment. We put red dots on guns and were scoffed at by the general gun knowledge public. Do you every see a soldier without an Aimpoint now? Its definitely caught on with the military and the general public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Charles, SOF PAINTED targets safety Orange between each squad for long range targets, and they were lucky in the fact that the Desert Sportsman club had very Light colored dirt, so closer plates stood out and were painted Black BETWEEN Squads. HMMMM....visible targets. I never ran into any I couldn't see all the way out to 600 m with the good old M-14 with Iron sights, not once! I don't recall SOF ever relying on USPSA rules, but that is the past. They do things differently there. As for the rule book, I like the safety rules no doubt, but things like, an OPEN shotgun can only hold 10? Well that one has to make you wonder, as do many othere things. Those are the things I am talking about, kind of like the .30 Gremlin, hell yes it should be legal, and yet we have folks whipping out the good old book and arguing inconsiquential increments. I am sorry I even brought it up, but I thought Daniel and Robbie would get a chuckle out of it, instead of getting attacked for being inovative. KurtM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Please take the rule book debate off this thread...and, for that matter, this thread isn't about target color/paint/backers. Those may be discussions that deserve their own venue, as this one does. - Admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Since apparently no one reads my sig line I feel it is a good response to the "fair" discussion.....Considering the amount of fancy equipment now seen in competition, some readers have complained loudly that the 'average guy' does not have a chance. It might be pointed out that this average guy never has had a chance. Competition is held to determine what is best, not what is average. And if all the equipment were standardized, the man who won would still not be in any sense average. Remember this came from Colonel Cooper himself. I've read that sig line. Sounds solid. I didn't know it came from Cooper. ------------- - We have established that it is most likely legal. - Any "availability" issues have always been associated with gear. Brass and powder? - The brass is available, it would seem. Just not available like 223. (But, we make no such distinction with 10mm, for instance.) - Powder? Short cut? Long cut? Doughnut shaped? How special can it be? What we have seen here is a couple of top shooters prove that a major rifle works. And that...given a testing system (match with Major/Minor paper) that allows for such a distinction, not only does it work, but it wins. We have also seen that a 30 cal. (and all the end game ballistics that go with it) is viable and shootable in one of the most favored and well handling systems in the world. Yes...no ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbrowndog Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 looking at 7.62x39 its looks easy enough to make 320pf with a 150gr bullet but you're only getting 2200fps, which does not make for a flat trajectory, but if you're shooting an optic with a multiple aiming point reticle it could be doable, with irons I think I'd rather shoot something else. trapr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Were did the 320pf come from? Is that based off the 308? Does it exclude loads that may have a solid basis? (practical and good terminal ballistics) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbrowndog Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Flex, I thought I had read that somewhere as PF for major with a rifle, it could be old info.?????????? trapr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) after having talked with a few of our European IPSC rifle competitors, it seems that they were of the opinion that the USPSA 320 major PF level was set up purposely to exclude all those "commie rifles"....AK-47's chambered in 7.62 X 39 . That it was set up to be strictly .308 Winchester friendly. Yeah, for a while there I had kicked around the idea of a major PF'ed rifle...but again after PM'ing our European counterparts....us A-mare-a-kenz are a lazy lot. Shoot paper targets past 100 or 200 yards??? Pffttt!!! Who are going to get to go out there to score and tape 200 yards and beyond paper targets after every shooter for the duration of a match?? Hence, here in the States, supposedly, we rely on self resetting steel at 100 yards and beyond...where PF doesn't matter... as long as it goes ding... I suppose.... If a pro-major PF match director ever put on a match at some location west of the Mississippi where we had the long distance ranges and volunteers to score and tape long distance paper, then yeah, it could, theoretically, put the USPSA 3 gun world on its ear. Or at least that is the concensus I got from PM'ing several of our Euro rifle competitors.... change the format of the match...then major PF might catch on.... Of course dropping major to say about 300 would help too. Edited October 29, 2009 by Chills1994 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el pres Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Multigun rule book 2009 minor 150 major 320 I think Chills is right on the Commie rifle coment as most outlaw 3guns have that same idea just a different way of stateing it (.308 or larger for Heavy Metal) .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) just curious... are the outlaw match's rules specific enough that they spell out directly ".308 Winchester or larger"... or is it a minimum .308 caliber.... then if so, I thought the AK47 round was actually .311 diameter. Not that trying to range lawyer your way into heavy metal when you show up with an AK is gonna make you any friends in the M1A/FAL/AR10 crowd. Where would the PSL/Dragunov (knock-off) round of 7.62X54mm fit in then?? I think at some point somebody like Phil Strader or Erik Lund or Bruce Piatt was either selling a carry handle AR chambered in 7.62X39...and/or he was tinkering with the AK74 round of 5.45X45mm ?? in an AR I think... but the catch was that most ammo was imported and had a steel core...which wouldn't necessarily be good for the steel targets. Plus, I think the USPSA 3 gun/rifle rules specifically said a minimum caliber diameter of .224 . I think the AK74 round is actually like a .221 caliber....so Erik, Phill, or Bruce gave up on that idea for 3 gun. anywhooo....my thoughts are that if the major PF was dropped to 300 or 280.... it will lend itself or rather encourage more experimentation within the AR15 platform. Besides that... I think more guys would rather try to get by just buying a new barrel and bolt and/or a complete upper for their AR15 versus shelling out nearly $2K for an AR10.... An M1A or an FAL chambered in .243 Win...could be interesting.... Edited October 30, 2009 by Chills1994 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LChico Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Since apparently no one reads my sig line I feel it is a good response to the "fair" discussion.....Considering the amount of fancy equipment now seen in competition, some readers have complained loudly that the 'average guy' does not have a chance. It might be pointed out that this average guy never has had a chance. Competition is held to determine what is best, not what is average. And if all the equipment were standardized, the man who won would still not be in any sense average. Remember this came from Colonel Cooper himself. I've read that sig line. Sounds solid. I didn't know it came from Cooper. ------------- - We have established that is is most likely legal. - Any "availability" issues have always been associated with gear. Brass and powder? - The brass is available, it would seem. Just not available like 223. (But, we make no such distinction with 10mm, for instance.) - Powder? Short cut? Long cut? Doughnut shaped? How special can it be? What we have seen here is a couple of top shooters prove that a major rifle works. And that...given a testing system (match with Major/Minor paper) that allows for such a distinction, not only does it work, but it wins. We have also seen that a 30 cal. (and all the end game ballistics that go with it) is viable and shootable in one of the most favored and well handling systems in the world. Yes...no ? No. See my bold highlights in your message. They would have had the exact same placement shooting minor. There were only 4 stages in the match with paper targets for rifle (out of 12): Stages 5, 7 10 & 11. I went back in and added minor points for every B-C-D hit on those stages. That is actually not a fair assessment, since it assumes that every non A hit on stages 7 & 10 were shot with the rifle & there were also handgun targets on both those stages. Since I no longer have the original score sheets, I handicapped them both by subtracting a point for every non A hit. After adding in the 38 additional penalty points for Daniel & the 31 additional penalty points for Robbie, I have Daniel in first place & Robbie in 4th place -- exactly where they finished. But everyone else in the match did move up by ONE PERCENTAGE POINT. It does, however, prove the point that Daniel & Robbie are not "average" guys. Linda Chico (L-2035) 2009 USPSA Multigun Nationals Statistician Edited October 30, 2009 by LChico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbrowndog Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Chills, if you start moving the PF around to stimulate major rifles you may as well just do away with it, as for HM most rules I believe read 7.62x51 or larger, So 7.62x39 would not make it, but 7.62x54 would. Unless there is paper to be scored, and there has to be about a 60/40 or so, there really is no reason for the average guy to attempt major pf. And as was said earlier, the IPSC crowd appears to be the only ones that are willing to send people downrange to score and paint targets beyond 100yds. I gave serious thought to taking my JP 308 to Norway for the IPSC ERC, but the team kind of made a decision that we should all shoot the same caliber, and it was much easier getting ammo for everyone because we all shot the same ammo. Sending 308 would have been needlessly expensive. As it turned out I don't know if there would have been an advantage gained by doing it, most of the LR stuff was steel. trapr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el pres Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 just curious... are the outlaw match's rules specific enough that they spell out directly ".308 Winchester or larger"... or is it a minimum .308 caliber.... then if so, I thought the AK47 round was actually .311 diameter. Not that trying to range lawyer your way into heavy metal when you show up with an AK is gonna make you any friends in the M1A/FAL/AR10 crowd. Usually they spell out 7.62X51 or larger ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan 45 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) just curious... are the outlaw match's rules specific enough that they spell out directly ".308 Winchester or larger"... or is it a minimum .308 caliber.... then if so, I thought the AK47 round was actually .311 diameter. Not that trying to range lawyer your way into heavy metal when you show up with an AK is gonna make you any friends in the M1A/FAL/AR10 crowd. Usually they spell out 7.62X51 or larger ... As they should. There's nothing MAJOR about the 7.62x39. (unless you are on the receiving end, and then I think even .22LR would be major) IMO, pf for major should have never been dropped from 350. Edit to add- I do think this is an interesting cartridge, but I imagine it has much more suitable purposes than playing 3 gun. I can't see AMU dumping the $$$ or Robbie and Daniel spending the time on it just for USPSA or IPSC matches. Edited October 30, 2009 by Bryan 45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack T Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Back at the first USPSA 3-Gun (1990, 91 ??), I thought I would be slick and machined/chambered a Douglas Premium Match Barrel for a Ruger Mini 30 chambered for 7.62 X 39 and worked up a great load for it, very accurate. There wasn't a power factor then and .30 made major so I thought I would have a huge advantage with the 30 round magazines and a softer shooting gun. Moral to the story: It ain't the arrow it's the indian. My first 3-Gun and I didn't have a clue. Still don't sometimes. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 No. See my bold highlights in your message. They would have had the exact same placement shooting minor. I probably didn't state that very well. The point I was trying to make...they didn't get their butts handed to them for shooting Major. They did show that shooting Major is competitive...which is something that seems like a new idea. (having it work, anyway) Of course, stage design in our "games" might negate that rather easily. So, that then begs the questions of if our games are testing things in a truly "practical" manner or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike P Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 just curious... are the outlaw match's rules specific enough that they spell out directly ".308 Winchester or larger"... or is it a minimum .308 caliber.... then if so, I thought the AK47 round was actually .311 diameter. Not that trying to range lawyer your way into heavy metal when you show up with an AK is gonna make you any friends in the M1A/FAL/AR10 crowd. Usually they spell out 7.62X51 or larger ... As they should. There's nothing MAJOR about the 7.62x39. (unless you are on the receiving end, and then I think even .22LR would be major) IMO, pf for major should have never been dropped from 350. Edit to add- I do think this is an interesting cartridge, but I imagine it has much more suitable purposes than playing 3 gun. I can't see AMU dumping the $$$ or Robbie and Daniel spending the time on it just for USPSA or IPSC matches. I think that even 350 is too low for major PF. I routinely get 380 to 390 from SA surplus out of a 16 inch FAL. 165 out of govt model .45 is pretty gay too. Its Just my opinion but major PF should at least approach factory loadings for the caliber/bullet weight combination of the cartridges designed to be used in the weapon platform being used. Pf really doesn't matter though except in USPSA, the only chrono I've seen this year is mine, and never at a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Actually Kelly Neal was the first to "prove" that shooting major you don't get your butt handed to you. Back in the dark ages, say around 2004-2006, he did darn fine (as I recall he won or was second!) at the Nationals with a FAL in .260. He showed us all that shooting major was competitive.....and EXPENSIVE!!! Neither have changed...yet. KurtM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry White Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) The floor for rifle major is 320 (was higher at one time), dosent say a word about 7.62x 51 min. The 7.62x51 or .308 win thing came along with HEAVY METAL, cant have real battle rifles (AR !0, M1A and Fals ect) showing up in .243, .260 ect. Had to stay in the mood you know, SS 45s, 12 guage pump guns and REAL battle rifles so the MDs started the 308 win/7.62x51/ 30/06 thing for HEAVY METAL Dont go mixing the eggs in with the apples here.. USPSA Tac Optics and Limited if you want to shoot major you could do it with a .223 if you could get that pill going fast enough to make 320 PF. Hats off to the AMU. The guys that should be worrying about this all wear dirty clothes with rags on thier heads and dont go to the Nationals anyway.---------Larry Edited October 30, 2009 by Larry White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebg3 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Based on the early info from Remington, I thought the .30 Remington AR would have gained some interest in the 3 gun world, but I just looked at Remington's website and the ballistics listed for it now are even less impressive than the 7.62x39. What happened with that? It was suppose to be a 125g at about 2800, but now they show a 125g @ 2200fps. .30 Rem.AR has a rebated rim that is .473 or the same as a .308 so I think mag capacity is the problem with this round. It will pretty much be singlestack in the AR-15 platform. Should be a good hunting round though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmon Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 would a long-barreled 6.8 spc II make the major power factor? ive seen some loaded to the gills loads that are close out of a 20 inch gun. Harmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowsure Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I've made major with 130gn bullits in 6.8 SPC and 20" barrel. Took a while to work up the load and in the summer the brass was a little on the edge. It wasent worth it. I only shoot one or two USPSA matches a year and the extra effort is a wash at best. If most matches I shoot didnt have the .308 (7.62) rule I might try it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebg3 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 would a long-barreled 6.8 spc II make the major power factor? ive seen some loaded to the gills loads that are close out of a 20 inch gun.Harmon I've got a 20" barreled 6.8 and I have not been able to make major with 110 or 115gr bullets. I can get 300-310pf. If someone came out with a 130gr short bullet I think it would be fairly easy to make PF. The BC would be really low though. Function is great with PRI mags, 25 rounders, and I'd bet someone would have some higher cap. mags if the demand was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) This thread is starting to twist like several others and sounding like what is really wrong with USPSA rules without offering suggestions as to make an improvement. By way of example the 6.8 makes major but USPSA is the only place it has to play since most of the other matches do not use major/minor for rifle and require 30 caliber or better for major which is only heavy metal. Should there be some common ground here? Possible solutions as I see them in no order of preference: 1. Insert major/mionor scoring in non USPSA matches. Of course this would mandate some major changes in non USPSA match scoring. 2. Eliminate major/minor scoring in USPSA matches effectively leaving all but HM to be 223. HM will not like 6.8 or other new sub 30 calibers in HM because of softer reocil. 3. Lower the size bullet that you can use in HM in all matches (USPSA and non USPSA) so that HM is defined by power factor rather than caliber. Same disadvantage as 2 above. 4. Make all rifles shoot head to head regardless of caliber. There are consequences to being uniform . Edited November 2, 2009 by Charles Bond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbrowndog Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Charles, I do not read it as BAD mouthing USPSA!!!!! simply what can and cannot make Major PF. As far as accomodating those shooters that want to shoot Major PF but do not with to meet the current floor of 320PF, why should matches start making accomodations now, its never been a concern before, with other issues. trapr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now