MN3GUNGROUP Rules: Red dot = Iron Sights? What the...?

[xd ED]

I totally agree with goalie.

And to Ron's point, I don't' care if people have little infractions like over sized mag wells or their gun is to heavy by ounces or they have a holster that is dimensionally inaccurate. I agree, just focus on your shooting and have fun.

But when optics are added verses irons, or someone has twice as many rounds in their magazine, I call foul. I want to gauge my performance against a (rougly) level playing field, and I want to use that to focus my practice and become better.

Ahrens idea of a points adjustment a la major/minor is an interesting one...

Not to disagree with any of the 'level playing field arguments' presented, nor to dismiss the competitive spirit as a motivation to train/ improve, but, in regards to a measure of improvement/ gauge of effective training- isn't the scoring system an objective means to do so?
As I (slightly) understand scoring, it reflects speed, accuracy, and power in reasonably objective numerical value, does it not?

[westberg]

No I'm not missing the point, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I can't understand you, justa saying. It may or it may not be an advantage in an actual match. It will depend on the skill of other shooters. Try shooting a match sometime and you may see this. If the equipment was so important you would not have minutes between the fastest and slowest shooters.

[hammAR]

Not to disagree with any of the 'level playing field arguments' presented, nor to dismiss the competitive spirit as a motivation to train/ improve, but, in regards to a measure of improvement/ gauge of effective training- isn't the scoring system an objective means to do so?
As I (slightly) understand scoring, it reflects speed, accuracy, and power in reasonably objective numerical value, does it not?

And here I thought that testosterone inflamed competitiveness was all taken care of with a simple duel....

[xd ED]

Not to disagree with any of the 'level playing field arguments' presented, nor to dismiss the competitive spirit as a motivation to train/ improve, but, in regards to a measure of improvement/ gauge of effective training- isn't the scoring system an objective means to do so?
As I (slightly) understand scoring, it reflects speed, accuracy, and power in reasonably objective numerical value, does it not?

And here I thought that testosterone inflamed competitiveness was all taken care of with a simple duel....

....them was the days.....
I suppose you could keep it sorta real by starting every match with everyone slapping each others' faces with gloves, just to get things moving

[westberg]

Not to disagree with any of the 'level playing field arguments' presented, nor to dismiss the competitive spirit as a motivation to train/ improve, but, in regards to a measure of improvement/ gauge of effective training- isn't the scoring system an objective means to do so?
As I (slightly) understand scoring, it reflects speed, accuracy, and power in reasonably objective numerical value, does it not?

And here I thought that testosterone inflamed competitiveness was all taken care of with a simple duel....

....them was the days.....
I suppose you could keep it sorta real by starting every match with everyone slapping each others' faces with gloves, just to get things moving

Then I want a dot on my flintlock.

[J.Schmitt]

So, again, you can talk all the smack you want, you can try to belittle people's opinion on it, but I have a strong feeling that you are not going to get new 3-gun shooters to pay to play when they are paying to play on an uneven playing field.

If it's a good idea, let USPSA have the stock service pistol guys shoot against the open guys. By the logic being used, it shouldn't hurt attendance at all........

Oh, and just for the record, are YOU going to shoot irons against the optics? I think you should do it with all three guns and see how fun it is.

Justa say'n[/quote]



You hit part of the reasoning behind this about the uneven playing field. I will again say that this is being "tried". One of the driving factors with RDS is the large number of them that have been purchased. There are many from the military who returned and bought one along with a rifle as well as many in use in LE. Another sector bought RDS because they were cool. Where the playing field is uneven, is when the RDS shows up and competes against a magnification optic.

The RDS shooter gets spanked so badly the go away. Now I know that it was only one of 3 guns but the rifle is the driving force of 3 gun. I also think that they should either scrap the RDS and buy a scope or go to irons. That however that is not reality. On the broader national level this is being tried to bolster the entire "numbers" competing. We have already lost iron shooters in droves. The hope is to gain new shooters. Look at the last match 6 iron shooters. 3 heavy metal. 51 total competitors.

Most that show up with RDS will eventually swap to a scope. RDS are not easy to shoot at long range. Bring one and try the 400 yard targets at Minnetonka on April 10.

When I get a chance I will post some more of the overriding implications.

[hammAR]

Screw the Red Dots..........
pull your diapers up and quit effen sniveling.....
just go kick their ass and don't worry about it...........
even if it is on a flintlock..............

[Snowgun]

I wonder if this situation was started when they decided to make a separate division for optics on heavy metal. This prompted everyone who wanted to try heavy metal automatically gravitate toward the optics division (probably for all the reasons J Schmitt just mentioned for RDS's being popular). Plus those already in HM division who liked optics jumped ship. Viola! a marked decrease in iron shooters.

Not to disagree with any of the 'level playing field arguments' presented, nor to dismiss the competitive spirit as a motivation to train/ improve, but, in regards to a measure of improvement/ gauge of effective training- isn't the scoring system an objective means to do so?
As I (slightly) understand scoring, it reflects speed, accuracy, and power in reasonably objective numerical value, does it not?

Ed, Scoring is a relative metric. Run 8.5 miles. Find your time. How well did you do? 8.5 miles is a random distance. Stages are random and change for every match. You will probably say "well just divide my time by miles and I'll see how I did per mile". You are using a benchmark, which was developed by many people running miles. There is no such thing for comp shooting that can be applied to stages. Now if run with other people on this 8.5 mile with only one shoe, you can compare how you did, but what will you be thinking when you see the scores post?

A red dot is even more of an advantage on a rifle than on a pistol. Long distance the advantage might be less, but the majority of rifle targets are not long distance.

I think if you want to shoot heavy metal than do it with irons. Don't even have a options HM division. That will make people man up and use irons if they want to shoot that fun division.

I am glad that J Schmitt and Co are keeping an open mind on this. Hopefully more shooters buck show up to buck this red dot trend and make this a moot point.

[JJ]

Screw the Red Dots..........
pull your diapers up and quit effen sniveling.....
just go kick their ass and don't worry about it...........
even if it is on a flintlock..............

+1

Seem like a lot of crying about something that is BEING TRIED OUT If you don't like it play another game. I hear the world of Warcraft world is always more than willing.

[Snowgun]

Screw the Red Dots..........
pull your diapers up and quit effen sniveling.....
just go kick their ass and don't worry about it...........
even if it is on a flintlock..............

Will do Sir!

[Snowgun]

Seem like a lot of crying about something that is BEING TRIED OUT If you don't like it play another game. I hear the world of Warcraft world is always more than willing.

You must shoot optics.

[JJ]

Seem like a lot of crying about something that is BEING TRIED OUT If you don't like it play another game. I hear the world of Warcraft world is always more than willing.

You must shoot optics.

I haven't even begun to get into the three gun game. Purely from an outsider looking in, this is all I hear

[hammAR]

Screw the Red Dots..........
pull your diapers up and quit effen sniveling.....
just go kick their ass and don't worry about it...........
even if it is on a flintlock..............

Will do Sir!

...........

[timwarner]

hah, gunny got bumped up.

Seriously though. No difference running optics vs no optics, compared to running a 500 dollar glock vs a 2k+ STI.

Pull up the panties, get your gear sorted out, and jesus christ go shoot the damned thing.

[rugersol]

Seriously though. No difference running optics vs no optics

that's not true ... last Saturday, I bet Bob'd've given jest 'bout anything to have iron sights!