NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

[Lowlight]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frank, my intention was and is not to knock anyone's matches, venues, skills, or experience. I've met Zak and Ray and I intend to do business with them regardless whether or not my company does or not.

I am saying, as with pistol shooting, Cooper's triad of gunfighting seems to fit -- you have to develop all three to be balanced.

1. Basic shooting and gunhandling skills.
2. Sound, effective tactical application on demand.
3. The willingness to execute the first two regardless of conditions, fatigue, and adversity.

Few places and competitions develop all three, and I seriously doubt (I've been wrong MANY times) the NRA will even try to address the last.

You have a mastery of the triad -- but I'm not sure many of your (or my) customers are at that stage (yet). You know them as soon as you get them on the range and in the field.</div></div>

I completely agree with all of it, and we do see people coming to matches without the basic elements of even #1, heck every single match we put on Jacob and I go through a ritual back and forth, 1 because of safety and gun handling among people we don't have experience with, and 2. because of the on demand factor -- basically it is where we see the majority of errors take place. The 3rd is difficult when the first two are misunderstood.

you hate to turn people away, that is a fact, but truly many are so far out of their element so we actually try to assign some sort of mentor to use the term loosely. I think that is where the frustration lies with some of these guys in terms of experience with the older HP crowd. I know I experienced it early on, but my attitude won't let it be a factor, I'm too much a punk to sit by quietly. However think of the experience if a first time competitor arrived and was given a tour guide ? I think that is where a lot this falls apart for HP and why the "Tactical" side continues to grow.

I maybe wrong but I see other ways to address this, which joins the shootings sports rather than compartmentalizes it.

 

[sinister]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> One of the military guys who shoots with us (who has has been to Afghanistan to shoot bad people "on the job" in the last couple years) told me that shooting at the Steel Safari site was better long-range "training" than he ever got in the military. I don't call it training, but that he would put it that say speaks volumes to the value of practical field shooting put on by civilians with more or less pedestrian day jobs.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">BINGO!</span></span>

I've been in enough hard units where hearing, "I've been on tougher exercises and evaluations than combat" is PRECISELY the point. Generals have used gallons of ink writing the same.

Being trained and ready BEFORE the first rounds come in and go out is where your best units will be, regardless of country or force.

Basic training, development, and sustainment build elementary skill. Competition hones and sharpens the edge. I've never been to a competition where I didn't learn something (either as a competitor, host, or observer). It is where outside ideas come from.

Adapting and improving is what separates the best from the mass. Equipment and techniques don't improve if there's no forward movement -- but there has to be a solid foundation to build on, otherwise an individual may not absorb anything if he's overwhelmed by guys with equipment shooting at levels beyond his comprehension.

How well does a real champion develop those around him who are still stuck with plain-vanilla issued, off-the-shelf gear? Coaching and sharing do that, and a separate "Service," "Stock," or "Issued" gear class recognizes a level of skill with limited gear.

Having to watch people at the "Basic competency level under direct supervision" stage is a distractor if you're trying to do something for profit --but is required if you want return customers, students, and sponsors.

 

[BOLTRIPPER]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">has excellent real world value to that the hardened warrior can exploit. </div></div>
One of the military guys who shoots with us (who has has been to Afghanistan to shoot bad people "on the job" in the last couple years) told me that shooting at the Steel Safari site was better long-range "training" than he ever got in the military. I don't call it training, but that he would put it that say speaks volumes to the value of practical field shooting put on by civilians with more or less pedestrian day jobs.

</div></div>


look...its boltripper up off the couch....
http://demigodllc.com/photo/SteelSafari-2008/?small=D462_7554_img.jpg


and yet another,,,,,
http://www.demigodllc.com/photo/SteelSafari-2008/?small=D462_7645_img.jpg

 

[Lowlight]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Talking on the back side and thinking about it as objectively as possible...

I would think the NRA getting involved on a local level wouldn't be a bad thing by any means.

if they standardized something simple that a range with at least 300 yards could do, I think that would just add to the sport. Even to the degree like they do at Cherry Ridge in NJ with the Carlos Match. If there was a program to help people get their feet wet, understand the gun handling requirements as well as what on demand means, I feel that would go a long way.

Not only would it bring more people into the sport, but potentially give them the confidence to participate in the bigger matches, as well, maybe the larger range facilities like a CRC in Byers, CO would be able to host something like the guys at NORCAL do... who I feel are also doing it right with what they have available.

It would really have to be something special for them to be apart of a match like the ones we put on at Rifles Only, but locally, I can definitely see the positive side of it. Giving the new shooter experience and confidence necessary to get them on the road to consistent participation.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Standardization of courses of fire simply does not make sense. But I do not yet see NRA Competition Shooting promoting this transformation - that fear is probably unjustified. Like I said before, the NRA has sanctioned some major 3-Gun matches so far (RM3G Nat'ls to name one) with no effect on the courses of fire or match administration.

If an NRA sanction on a match does not add bogus requirements, but allows the match director to more easily solve administrative problems like: venue, insurance, sponsors, and advertising- then this can be a good thing.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Standardization of courses of fire simply does not make sense.

</div></div>

I'll make but one comment regarding this.

Shooting sports are primarily about participation and secondarily about competition. The vast majority of the shooters are not contenders for the overall top 3. Quite simply, if there were not participants, there would be no venue for true competitors.

Standardization, for example USPSA classifiers, allows a means to establish tiers of classification. This is done across many forms of participation, including enduros, hare scrambles, and motocross.

Standardization is an easy way to establish percentages, times, etc. across multiple venues. A "portable" classification system is something the NRA does throughout most of the shooting sports they are involved in.

If the NRA establishes some form of limited course standardization for the purposes of classification, I would be in support of that as an incentive to shooters that are not at the overall contender level.

EDITED TO ADD:

I would also like to say hats off to the Zaks, the Scottmilks, the Hosers, and all the other innovative motivated people that have given birth and developed many of our current "outlaw" events and venues. They deserve credit for bringing new people into the shooting sports and making it more enjoyable for us already in them.

No effort involving the NRA if there becomes one should in any way hamper these types of efforts. The NRA should seek these people out for ideas on how the NRA could better support the shooting community.

Even if the NRA were to move forward with some program along these lines, as with the other current NRA supported disciplines today, there is nothing that says you must sanction your events through them.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

exactly,

even if it means, that it opens the door so a local range will let the competitors shoot from something other than the bench, that is fine... I bet that goes a long way with ranges that require the shooter to be sitting at a bench.

as far as standardization, even in a limited capacity is fine with me, if they say, you must do, X,Y, & Z, and then D, E, and F are added bonuses at the event organizers discretion, again, I see no down side to it. Especially if its is something they can send out so any range can be easily up and running.

Zak, I am talking locally, not regionally or even nationally, simply giving local ranges a format and course of fire to get them going, because frankly, this isn't everyone's thing so I wouldnt' expect everyone to know what goals they should be setting. in that way there would have to be some standardization.

 

[J.Boyette]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Standardization of a COF would be easy and the best thing going for the NRA to do, if they do it.

Lets face it, you can only skin this cat so many ways to get a bullet from point A to point B and make it a challenge.

you can add in holds and so forth that make it a challenge also for some.

But a basic COF that could fit a 100-1000yd KD range like Butner and the same COF but scaled down for a 100 - 600yd range or a 100 - 300yd range would be easy.

find the skill sets you want to test, offhand, roll over prone from 100 - 300yds

Then add to it, hold over - under, slung prone, bi-pod prone, sitting, movers 300 - 600yds

And so on and make about 10 target sets per-group from 100-300yds, 300-600yds, 600-1000yds the match directors and pick and apply as they see fit.

this would be the way to roll.

John

 

[kraigWY]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

I'll admit, I'm primarhy a HP shooter, or was until I've shifted my interest to CMP GSM vintage rifle games.

I've shot one of Zak's matches at Gurnsey. I enjoyed the heck out of it. Does that mean I'm going to give up HP, No Sir. It means I needed to go back and concentrate on my fundamentals which HP does for me.

I shoot bullseye pistol. Then I found a local club that shoots ICORE, my opinion, the most fun you can have pistol shooting. Does that mean I'm giving up Bullseye. No Sir, I go back to bullseye that stresses fundamentals more then ICORE, my ICORE scores go up.

Heck I even dabble in BPCR Creedmore. You shoot a 500+ grn bullet at about 1100 fps at 800-1000 yards, competing for air space with satalites, you're bound to learn something.

I like shooting differant venues. At every match I shoot, three things are a constant. 1: I learn something, 2: I have fun, 3: I meet and make friends with new people.

At my old age in life, my main shooting goal is to get more people involve. New Shooters are the future of shooting sports, regardless of venue. Based on what I've seen so far CMP Vintage Rifle and Rimfire Sporter Class shooting is the best means to accomplish that goal. Whether you agree with that or not, one thing is a given.

Fighting among ourselves sure as hell ain't the way to do it.

 

[J.Boyette]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Oh BTW,

Just because NRA gets involved, means nothing to Rifles Only, Zac and people like myself.

I would look at there matches, pull what I can, and still drive on the way I do things.

John

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Field shooting is more like an enduro and there are no standard enduro classifcation courses. You won't even find identical motocross tracks.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Zak, I am talking locally, not regionally or even nationally, simply giving local ranges a format and course of fire to get them going,</div></div>
Sure, exactly.

There are very very few places where you can shoot a true field match. This makes them impossible to reach for a majority of shooters, and even then the "fear factor" of competing in a match beyond your experience is high.

There are more 600, 800, and 1000 yard ranges where you can shoot KD type events on a HP-style range. I've seen proposals for "standards" style stages at these conventional ranges. This would not be a "field" match by any means, but a format other than F-class could test more practical applications and set up divisions that would draw new shooters.

A library of two dozen stages that are somewhat interesting in terms of practical shooting and can be shot on a 40-yard wide 1000-yard KD range would be useful, along with associated stage/match logistic procedures. This would be a sort-of "match starter packet", not a proscribed set of things a MD has to subscribe to to get his field match "accredited."

ETA: I am not a huge fan of shooter classifications. Without a system of mandatory classifier stages and/or a strong organizing body that can monitor finishes for class promotions, it's downright meaningless.

-z

 

[sinister]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Concur.

Getting a club or director to even allow field firing on a standard KD range is like pulling teeth (civilians are concerned with "Insurance compliance" so I'm told, and Bragg and Benning have ancient Fokkers running range control -- if it ain't in the book they won't underwrite training unless a Commander pushes it).

 

[Lindy]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

A classification system is also not very useful, save for those who want to stroke their egos by acquiring higher classifications. I've shot IDPA competitions for years with a marksman classification in SSP, and had lots of fun and good trigger time. In fact, I've only shot the classifier for score when I acquired a gun in a new division.

Just as an IQ score is a reflection of one's ability to take an IQ test, rather than a test of intelligence, the classification score reflects the ability to shoot the classifier - and not much more.

I guess some need a way to know that they are becoming better at what they do, and a classification system provides that.

But one of the things I treasure about tactical rifle competitions, at least so far, is that it's <span style="font-style: italic">not</span> standardized, and is thus a test of the competitors' ability to analyze a <span style="font-style: italic">new</span> shooting problem, and figure out the best way to shoot it, rather than a test of his ability to practice and shoot a standard problem.

And that's one of the reasons that a shooter at a Rifles Only competition may find some stages which look familiar, but will find many stages they have never seen before - and will never see again.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A classification system is also not very useful, save for those who want to stroke their egos by acquiring higher classifications.

</div></div>

WOW that is an interesting response Lindy. I guess bowling, golf, bicycle racing, and a whole long list of activities adults and juniors participate in have it all wrong. It is a great conspiracy set up just to stroke the egos of the top people, not to support people entering the sport, progressing through the sport, and offering incentive/recognition along the way as they compete with others at their level or move up the ranks.

This really has me questioning who the snobs are.

 

[Lindy]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess bowling, golf, bicycle racing, and a whole long list of activities adults and juniors participate in have it all wrong.</div></div>

I wondered how long it would take to elicit a response like that. Not long.

You responded to a single sentence, rather than the tone of the whole post. Sounds just like a response from a person with high classifications who is sensitive about it.

I have participated in golf, bowling, and bicycle racing, enjoyed them all, and never encountered a classification system in any of them. Guess I was doing it wrong.

In tactical rifle matches, shooters compete on a level playing field. I like that. Others needn't.

 

[j-huskey]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

I'm trying to behave here.

Leo,
There also has to be a reason the military has qualification badges, promotions, and awards, based on performance levels reached, and uses them to reward people, uses them to offer incentives, and uses them to recognize proficiency and skills.
I can't find in my warped mind where it is to stroke those people's ego. And my mind is warped.

80% or better of the people need some kind of guide to gauge their performance, to have incentives, and to recognize their levels of successes and failures. Those who want to succeed need something to set a standard for them and to work against to do better. It is our way of life.

I know there is a small percentage who don't need the normal mode in their performance and maybe those are the people Lindy refers to. And then there are the thinkers who create paridigm shifts who don't follow the path or feed out of the same trough the rest of us do and they give us much.

Two sides of the coin.

jmho...

I cut off computer and go home now where I have no computer. That is a better place in life...

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

None of the matches I shoot use classification systems (other than division - which is about equipment not shooter skill level). As _9H alluded, I do race enduro at a novice level-- they have different racer classifications AA, A, B, C and they have about a dozen equipment divisions in each class... so at the end of a race there are 36+ overall division/class combinations that someone can "win." That's ridiculous. If I am not in the running for overall (which I am not in enduro - not even close), I get more satisfaction from beating my buddies who are close to my skill level. You don't need "classes" to do that, but one might argue it helps.

On the other hand, when prizes are awarded because you were "1st from the people from 60-80%", while the guy who placed "last amongst the people from 90-80%" gets no recognition, that's simply screwed up right there.

 

[Graham]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There also has to be a reason the military has qualification badges, promotions, and awards, based on performance levels reached, and uses them to reward people, uses them to offer incentives, and uses them to recognize proficiency and skills. I can't find in my warped mind where it is to stroke those people's ego.....</div></div>Interesting post.

That system, like any large organization, doesn't exist for the individual. Perhaps Napoleon was ccorrect when he said that the rational soldier, absent his training, would run away. Award systems like the one our military uses exist precisely because there are so many people involved. Let's face it: if a qualification was hard to get few would achieve it, which in many cases would defeat the purpose of the award given.

Perhaps it depends on whose recognition and approval one seeks.

 

[sinister]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

There's already a system in place, and no it ain't easy. It's not impossible, either, but then again it's for iron sighted service rifles and not sniper rifles.

For snipers the bottom line is the military sponsored matches (Benning, Bragg, and Camp Robinson) have so few participants in a very small population, while many of the guys are deployed.

There is no national governing body for sniper recognition and competition, so the field's wide open. Some places have called their matches "International" and "World Championships" because you might have one or two individuals or teams from somewhere else.

 

[ssatt68]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

In the military...
REMF with airborne wings and five jumps will wear his badge everyday of his life... “badge finder”

The front line type dude with every badge will wear none of them unless he is ordered to...

It seems the type of individuals interested in tactical shooting are not interested in being classified, but more interested in real world application of force with a long range weapon.

Just my casual observation

 

[kraigWY]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems the type of individuals interested in tactical shooting are not interested in being classified, but more interested in real world application of force with a long range weapon.</div></div>

Real Life Application.............give me a break. It's a game.

44088 members on on the hide. How many have worked as eithe LE or Militery Snipers/Counter Snipers. How many are school trained? I would be willing to bet One Percent, even if that high.

It's a game, no differant then any other competition or re-enactment; for the other 99% its a game.

I got my badges, I'm proud of them, three anyway, My Jump Wings (I spent most of my 25 years between the RA and NG on jump status), I got my CIB. And the hardest of all, my Dist. Badge. Not ashamed of either of the three. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This long range tactical stuff is a game, no differant then High Power, Action Pistol, Cowboy Action, CMP-GSM games. Yes its fun, most are, fact is I havent shot any disiplan that wasn't fun.

Its a game. Except for that 1%, those who are still in the game, LE or Military.

Lets not make something out of it it isn't. For most of us now days if we were into real world situations, we'd be spending all our time SD carry pistol/revolvers. Even that would be a small chance of being "real world".

We need to realize there are many shooting venues out there, HP, BE, Cowboy Action, PPC, Tactical Rifle 3 gun, etc etc. Just because one dosn't participate in a disiplan you like, dosn't mean they are any less a shooter they others.

 

[Graham]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its a game. Except for that 1%, those who are still in the game, LE or Military.</div></div>Even then it's still a game, although with greater consquences, particularly for the loser.

 

[ssatt68]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems the type of individuals interested in tactical shooting are not interested in being classified, but more interested in real world application of force with a long range weapon.</div></div>

Real Life Application.............give me a break. It's a game.

44088 members on on the hide. How many have worked as eithe LE or Militery Snipers/Counter Snipers. How many are school trained? I would be willing to bet One Percent, even if that high.

It's a game, no differant then any other competition or re-enactment; for the other 99% its a game.

I got my badges, I'm proud of them, three anyway, My Jump Wings (I spent most of my 25 years between the RA and NG on jump status), I got my CIB. And the hardest of all, my Dist. Badge. Not ashamed of either of the three. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This long range tactical stuff is a game, no differant then High Power, Action Pistol, Cowboy Action, CMP-GSM games. Yes its fun, most are, fact is I havent shot any disiplan that wasn't fun.

Its a game. Except for that 1%, those who are still in the game, LE or Military.

Lets not make something out of it it isn't. For most of us now days if we were into real world situations, we'd be spending all our time SD carry pistol/revolvers. Even that would be a small chance of being "real world".

We need to realize there are many shooting venues out there, HP, BE, Cowboy Action, PPC, Tactical Rifle 3 gun, etc etc. Just because one dosn't participate in a disiplan you like, dosn't mean they are any less a shooter they others. </div></div>
I am still active duty 20+ years in various army SOF units RGR Regt, SF and have been deployed down range, Panama, Bosnia, OEF in 2001, 2002 OEF-P in 04, 05, 06 OIF 07, 08 and I shoot high power. I also hate to shoot paper and black circles, but I do it because that is the only venue in this area where we can use a range that extends beyond 100m that is within driving distance. Sure tactical matches are a game, but I have yet to shoot at someone in the traditional HP off hand position with my Creedmoor hard back coat snuggled up. Run and gun over barricades… from rooftops… through cars… reactive steel targets are the closed thing to real we can get without shooting live animals… which brings up one of the primary reasons for field shooting… unk distance Scenario time… you just spent 5k on a guided elk hunt in Idaho 1k on gear 1k on airfare total $$$ into the hunt 8-9k and you get one shot at a slow moving 400+BC bull… practical application of force at long distance various conditions and with the widest possible variable set…

 

[Lindy]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

I like your sig. Bear Bryant said, in a similar vein, "It's not the will to win, but the will to prepare to win that makes the difference."

 

[ssatt68]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Thanks!

I quit nicotine a few days ago and shouldn’t have gotten so fired up… Everyone has an excuse especially me

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

I mentioned this is an email thread with _9H, but I should post it here too. "Tactical" when applied to competition is a nonsense word. Competition is not combat, and is not combat training. Competition can be a part of a training system, but its value comes from what makes it different. <span style="font-style: italic">Trying to make competition into something that it cannot fundamentally be is doomed to failure.</span> It's also a mistake to force people to use rifles that conform to "your" idea of what a "tactical" rifle is.

A common thread I see here is to design the match around the fact that people want to shoot "tactical rifles". That's great, but it's a poor way to define a match or a sport.

Figure out what you want the primary challenges of the match to be - in a short purpose statement - and then work out the match format and rules to support <span style="font-style: italic">that</span>. Let the competitors figure out the best way to shoot the match: what they need to bring, carry, and what equipment gives the best advantage. If you want to set up some rough divisions, like Open or .308 only, that's fine.

Competition implicitly asks shooters to figure out how to win- so don't get upset when people figure out that shooting something other than your image of what a "tactical" rifle is. Having rules that frustrate shooters' natural desire to evolve the best tool for the job are pointless.

If you want to influence rifle choice and "keep them honest", design the match and its stages such that only truly fieldworthy rifles will make it through the day without problems.

The value of competition is it is a crucible to advance skills and equipment to better solve shooting problems. Focus on the shooting problems you want to pose and let the rest follow.

Here is something I wrote about IDPA a while back on another forum-- just imagine it's about field rifle instead of pistol:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IDPA is not about fighting any more than any other practical shooting sport. They have a set of rules to conform to some conception about what defensive pistol practice should be and how gunfights should go. These assumptions are mistakes IMO and take away from the wide-open problem-solving ability that is critical to fighting in general (that's a part of MINDSET).

Practical shooting sports can do something very well that is related to fighting and that is: to evolve superior gun-handling, speed, and marksmanship skills. Part of what makes this possible is objective grading. If a person can rock hard, complex USPSA stages with perfect gun handling on a weekly or monthly basis, with stages that have shooting challenges much, much more complex than any likely defensive encounter, then the marksmanship, speed, and gun-handling parts of defense will all be second-nature, not additional complications and unknowns, in the encounter.

To put it bluntly: shooting competition should focus on the classic components of practical shooting - not defense - and offer shooting challenges that push the limits of what is possible - not limit itself to a lowest common denominator.</div></div>

Tactical is a poor choice of words to describe a match because it means nothing when applied in that context. Most people use it to describe the rifle, not the challenge at the match.

Practical shooting, on the other hand, describes the challenge: shooting problems that have direct relevancy to actual applications of the weapon. For practical long-range rifle, it's about getting first-round hits at target about the size of a mammal's chest cavity, from improvised positions in the field.

For example, the "purpose statement" of the Steel Safari is
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Steel Safari is a non-standard contest that examines practical rifle skills, including target recognition, range estimation, wind doping, trail skills, and marksmanship. It is designed to test a competitor's skills shooting rifle in practical "hunting-type" challenges in the natural terrain using what gear he can carry. </div></div>
It's not a tactical match-- it's a match that will test the practical application of a rifle in the field.

If the goal is simply to get people with "black bolt rifles" out to shoot on square KD ranges, simply get NRA HP matches to publicize a "Black-Rifle F-Class" division.

When I was talking to _9H, I mentioned that if the NRA really wanted to help practical long-range shooting, they should locate and negotiate for access to big tracts of land where real field matches can be put on. They could make money by taking 15% or whatever for facilitating access to the land.

 

[desertHK]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaMarine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe the NRA's agenda in this, is about control, and money.

I don't think they give a shit about tactical shooting. </div></div>


Couldn't agree more.

 

[ssatt68]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

ah-men

 

[Shady_Jay]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Even at the F class ranges they hold matches that are not sanctioned by the NRA. One that comes to mind were the Stockholder matches that used to be held at Fort Wolters.

Bottom line: Facilities can elect to hold matches that are exclusively NRA sanctioned, elect to hold both types of matches, or completely exclude NRA matches. Choose the ones you want to shoot. The sun will still rise the day after the match.

 

[Guest]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

+1, to everything you said, but this is the most important of all to me.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you want to influence rifle choice and "keep them honest", design the match and its stages such that only truly fieldworthy rifles will make it through the day without problems.

The value of competition is it is a crucible to advance skills and equipment to better solve shooting problems. Focus on the shooting problems you want to pose and let the rest follow.

Practical shooting, on the other hand, describes the challenge: shooting problems that have direct relevancy to actual applications of the weapon. For practical long-range rifle, it's about getting first-round hits at target about the size of a mammal's chest cavity, from improvised positions in the field.</div></div>

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

I have absolutely no objections to NRA including Tactical Rifle in their Law Enforcement Competition programs. I'd personally prefer to keep that camel's nose out of non-LE comps. I'm somewhat persuaded that the term 'Tactical' has no real meaning outside LE and Military applications, and that a better decriptive term might be both possible and beneficial.

I have spent a bunch of time shooting National Match course and really enjoyed it.

I have also fired F Class alongside the cream of the Palma crop, and for my purposes, I think the NRA's involvement has fertilized some fairly odd outgrowths.

I like the people very much, but I'd just as much be happier not shooting alongside them. They are far too intense and rule oriented. Such anal rule orientation is what you buy into when you go under the NRA's competitive wing. Maybe it's just me and a purely personal thing, but I'd really rather not.

Greg

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

"Tactical" sells, from guns to underwear. The market for IT is as elusive as it is distinct. Whatever the perception of what, exactly, tactical is all about, folks want to be part of it, and, stake a claim to it. Mostly, it appears to me, for those wanting some of it, it's an experience which can only be a vicarious one.

 

[fargo007]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

They have already sanctioned "some" 3-Gun style matches, such as LaRue, and have not managed to sour any part of them as far as I can tell.

Many critical remarks here are to me completely justified. The part about the suppressors was heartbreaking to read. That said, they <span style="text-decoration: underline">are</span> based on the prior actions of the "foagy mindset" that has reigned in the past.

I have some confidence that the man they brought on board to help sort this out knows our side of the fence and won't favor a watering down of either creativity, fidelity to working guns (vs. game/race guns), or rules that have a paralyzing or chilling effect. On another site there is a podcast type interview with him from which I draw this conclusion. I can't find it anymore and don't have the link, but it was several months ago.

At the end of the day if what is arrived at isn't for me, I just won't be using it. If it is helpful and can be used to attract more people to the sport or get more matches turned up, I'm on board. I'm sure a lot of people are going to take the same position.

I've yet to hear of a formal discussion opened up on the issue, but I think it's high time. Now is the time for venting and grievances. But when the real discussion starts, opening up all the old files is probably the worst approach we could take.

--Fargo007

 

[sinister]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

NRA involvement will mean it's a game. Game rule development will usually shoulder out military snipers (the NRA is so politically correct they'll drop silhouette targets. They'll probably drop the use of the word "Sniper," and delete all references to killing).

Sorry if I sound pessimistic or dubious. I haven't seen it all, but this is not my first rodeo. While Trey is probably going in with good intentions I've been involved with NRA Competitions long enough to know they aren't doing this for altruistic reasons.

Either NRA smells the potential to make money, or (rightly) they know there's a growing shooting discipline they know they've missed the boat on. Many of their readership (like on this board) buys and owns high-dollar long-range rifle rigs and handloads to feed them.

 

[gugubica]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

I would be fine with anything they want to do as long as:

At the beginning of each match, every competitor must dunk their rifle in a comtainer of water, then immediately burry it in sand.

I bet that would go a long way to guarantee that working guns would be used and avoid ultra high dollar benchrest type rigs.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either NRA smells the potential to make money, or (rightly) they know there's a growing shooting discipline they know they've missed the boat on</div></div>
Yep.

They've missed the boat on just about every shooting sport evolution in the last 30 years: USPSA, 3-Gun, etc.

The RM3G Nat'ls is the largest match run at the NRAWC, and has been for some time. http://nrawc.org/schedule/index.html

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would be fine with anything they want to do as long as:

At the beginning of each match, every competitor must dunk their rifle in a comtainer of water, then immediately burry it in sand.

I bet that would go a long way to guarantee that working guns would be used and avoid ultra high dollar benchrest type rigs.
</div></div>
Who cares? At the end of the day, if a match is better suited to a Benchrest rifle, then it's clearly not a practical match nor a field match anyway. If people want to shoot BR, I don't begrudge them for that - it's just not my sport.

 

[gugubica]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would be fine with anything they want to do as long as:

At the beginning of each match, every competitor must dunk their rifle in a comtainer of water, then immediately burry it in sand.

I bet that would go a long way to guarantee that working guns would be used and avoid ultra high dollar benchrest type rigs.
</div></div>
Who cares? At the end of the day, if a match is better suited to a Benchrest rifle, then it's clearly not a practical match nor a field match anyway. If people want to shoot BR, I don't begrudge them for that - it's just not my sport.
</div></div>

I agree completely, I actually find merit in BR competition. But, if they come in and develop a COF that is suposedly tactical (I don't like that term either), then it should be for tactical rifles. In true fashion though, wanting to make it accessible for everybody will open it up to much, imho. For clarification, the above was sacasm, I just don't wa t it to become so watered down that super high dollar, designed chamber, single shot, etc. Rifles become the norm and therfor the requirement.

You see rifles all the time that don't make it through your match, these are even field grade rifles sometimes. I like that. It say a lot about gear choice, and I think that is a big part of what these matches are all about. You gotta make good choices on what you bring, or you will learn not to the next time.

Btw, I am the guy LL was talking about showing up to a match with bad knees and bad back. I know that I will be asked to do some moving in a match like that, I don't expect anything to change about the match just because I fucked up my knees. I just move a little slower then everyone else.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

So define "Tactical".

I can make the arguement that Prairie Dog Hunts could be a practical match. Right from the USAMU Counter Sniper Guide.

Chapter 5, para 1. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The countersniper is a hunter...........Time is extremely critical, therefore, he can expect to be required to make shots at varying angles and distances on a split second's notice. The hunting of varments such as woodchucks and crows provides oustanting training because the techniques involved are almost identical.</div></div>

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mudcat-NC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Out of pure morbid curiousity, how many HP matches have you guys (sobrbiker and desertHK) shot? And no, not all HP shooters are snobbish old fart assholes....some are, but I suspect you will find folks like that in any discipline.

John
</div></div>

A couple of Jim Owen's data books worth of Service Rifle, so I have absolutely no idea what I am am talking about eh?


There's a reason I refer to the matches I prefer to shoot as "practical precision rifle". I'm not a sniper, I'm not tactical. I like to shoot to the capability of short action calibers in a more dynamic and stressed situation and positions than would be allowed at any NRA HP event.
That doesn't mean I can't or haven't shot HP, or that I dispute the benefit of it.

I still assert that 22 rounds at one distance at one target in 20 minutes, to me is like being pecked to death by a duck.
I'd prefer 22 rounds on about 10 targets at different ranges from a few different positions and maybe 2-2.5 minutes to shoot them.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

And by the way folks, people that are snipers for real as a living aren't worrying about this thread.......

Its another semantics wrestling match. Call them Field or Practical-Zak, Vu, Kurt, Scott, Brad, Frank and others put on the kind of match that tests the shooter and equipment owner that is the primary demographic for this site. Time spent arguing other modalities' is a waste of bandwidth.

 

[fargo007]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So define "Tactical".

I can make the arguement that Prairie Dog Hunts could be a practical match. Right from the USAMU Counter Sniper Guide.
</div></div>

Practical? Yes. Tactical? Maybe - depends how it's executed.

It's like "obscenity." We can't describe it, but we sure do know it when we see it.

You certainly could make that argument, and it has some weight. That said, varminting exercises only some of the skills involved, albeit extremely important and difficult ones. Someone shined light on it earlier, but "tactical" is only a political correction for "sniper-like." I say like - because we are exercising only the marksmanship components. Matches don't have people building urban hides, worrying about light discipline, etc.

I think of it as a knob that's turned to offer degrees of 'Tactical':

If the match tests a wide variety of marksmanship skills and gear, as an LE or MIL sniper might employ to fire at a human shaped target, across varying (including unknown) distances, it can be considered 'tactical.' The more this knob is turned, the easier it is to see it. Add moving targets, physical activity requirements, stress of body, mind, & time, and the "T" becomes more apparent.

OTOH, add a sedentary component (even to the extent of allowing people to hire kids to pit for them so they don't have to stand so much), permit way too much time per shot, specialized sights, shooting coats & slings, special shade-hats to wear, race guns & sights tuned to the target, proscriptions against using a magazine, compensator, suppressor, etc. and make the target and course of fire exactly the same every single time you have virtually turned the T-knob to zero. By the 90 vs. 9 comparison of TJ this plays out true.

That's the difference. It's still true - you know it when you see it.

22 rounds in 20 minutes? We do that three times, so it's the same shot sixty six times in a row. Shot to shot feedback is great, but I can get that any time I want by putting a buddy in the pits with a radio and a spotter disc. Might cost me a wawa hoagy. Clearly 66 is overtraining.

Sort of like pushups. They're fun. But when someone insists you do them way past the point of reasonability, each one sucks.

When I first heard how much the pit-kids were being paid, I knew I came to the range with the wrong plan.

--Fargo007

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The "tactical" label is appealing, it's code for "sniper". Some folks think, from what they've been convinced of by marketers, with the right equipment, they can become their own fantasy. That's O.K., "tactical" for these folks is just a distraction, a hobby interest. The NRA getting into "tactical" is smart, they know there's a shooting sports market there, and they'd be amiss not to mine it.

NRA governed HP and LR could be about tactical, as they're venues which inspire development of extraordinary marksmanship skills. These skills are at home on the range, as well as the battlefield.

I know there are many folks who want to become extraordinary marksmen, but have no interest in the sort of work it requires to get there. Once these folks experience the pain associated with HP or LR development, they drop out, blaming it all on anything and everything other than the real reason for choosing to quit. These folks do not understand that a quitter never wins and a winner never quits. For accolades, distinctions, recognition, certifications, and other rewards of being a good shot there's some work that needs to be done.</div></div>
Once again you slam everyone who doesn't shoot NRA HP LR. Classy.

Sterling Shooter, why are you even on SnipersHide? You clearly have contempt for anyone who doesn't shoot NRA HP, and the majority of people here don't.

</div></div>

Slam everyone? I'm not slamming anyone, I don't know how, plus, no contempt either. I think all shooting is the same; and, competition in any form is benificial for any who have an interest in becoming extraordinary shooters. HP and LR are all about basic marksmanship. Basic marksmanship knowledge is essential on the range, as well as the battlefield. My observations; however, suggest there are folks who try out HP in their quest for recognition and quit because there appears to be too much work involved to get to the plateaus they're aspiring to get to. That's O.K., HP is just one venue with which a shooter can find rewards from participation in basic marksmanship training.

 

[Mudcat-NC]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mudcat-NC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Out of pure morbid curiousity, how many HP matches have you guys (sobrbiker and desertHK) shot? And no, not all HP shooters are snobbish old fart assholes....some are, but I suspect you will find folks like that in any discipline.

John
</div></div>

A couple of Jim Owen's data books worth of Service Rifle, so I have absolutely no idea what I am am talking about eh?


There's a reason I refer to the matches I prefer to shoot as "practical precision rifle". I'm not a sniper, I'm not tactical. I like to shoot to the capability of short action calibers in a more dynamic and stressed situation and positions than would be allowed at any NRA HP event.
That doesn't mean I can't or haven't shot HP, or that I dispute the benefit of it.

I still assert that 22 rounds at one distance at one target in 20 minutes, to me is like being pecked to death by a duck.
I'd prefer 22 rounds on about 10 targets at different ranges from a few different positions and maybe 2-2.5 minutes to shoot them. </div></div>

Where in my post did I say you had absolutely no idea what you are talking about?

Now, about these data books, again, out of curiousity, when did you shoot, what did you shoot and where?

I do find it a bit odd that you find shooting 22 shots at the same target "boring" (I know, a little less colorful than your description), but that you did shoot HP...assuming you shot full course 600 or LR, as yeah, 300 and in can be a bit "boring" as its pretty easy to shoot cleans with high X counts...which, I am sure if we looked at your data book, is full of them.

But, I subscribe to the same thoughs as Sterling and Kraig...shooting is shooting, we are all progun and enjoy the shooting sports. For the life of me, I have never understood why one discipline picks on the other or tries to keep the other from getting range time, etc. We are our own worst enemy....worrying about the antigunners is probably overkill. I would shoot more than HP if I had the time, but I still find it challenging, even those 22 pecks by the duckbills!

John

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

RSSC, PRGC and BASF pretty regularly for 2 years, off and on for e year on either end of those two.

My comment came as a resonse to me reading the "doubtful" nature of your question.

If I had enough time and money I'd shoot practical precision, NRA HP and SB Silhouette, and NRA HP all the time, with 3gun and various pistol disciplines too.

Problem is I don't.

Back to the topic:
The NRA regulated discussion can bring an interesting spin to any day.
Just ask an IPSC or USPSA shooter about the benefits of NRA Bullseye and if they'd be interested in having the NRA sanction their sport......

 

[Scottmilk9]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

I respect the NRA shooting sports, they're not for me. Maybe I'm too ADHD or something but they're too slow for my pace. With that being said, the NRA has a lot of pull and could help any shooting sports, but in my opinion, I like how we've been running our own type of shooting and I'll stick with that.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Tactical, relevent, reality?

I contend you can find that in any of the shooting sports. Lets look at the relevence of High Power, (since the theme here seems to use that as a venue as, programed, with out revelence).

Also it's the sport I know most about. In high power we have differant aspects, the Across the Course, GSM (vintage rifle games), long range, and ITT (infantry trophy match or rattle battle).

Across the couse teaches marksmanship, lots of cleaned targets at 200 & 300. None at 200 standing, few at 600 yards. With all those sub minute guns out there you see few cleans at 600. Less at 1000 yards, even with sighters (don't get sighters in EIC and Team Matches). Looks like we still have a way to go for fundamentals.

Lets look GSM vintage rifle matches. Only shot at 100 or 200 yards, kind of like NMC only you have to use "as issued" rifles. How many cleaned targets have you seen at a Garand match? I would think that would be more realistic as when one enlist in the service, he dosn't get to take his precision rifle, he uses an "as issued weapon". So maybe GSM games are more realistic.

We can say that's because we are using "yesterdays" weapons. OK, ever attended a "small arms firing school", again, "as issued", todays weapons, but luck of the draw. Some our good some arn't, kind of like "arms room" guns. Realistic, I think more so then using a multi hundred dollar precission rifle.

Another venue of HP, (and my favorite) is the ITT. Probably the most "realistic" style shooting event". You have a squad, 6 shooters, devided up in two fire teams, each with a coach or fireteam leader, field glasses, its rapid fire, 50 seconds to get off as many rounds accuratly as possible, each hit counts more at longer distances. Besides shooting you have fire disiplan, redistrbution of ammo, etc. Mutltipal targers (8 for 6 shooters) having shoots on ALL targets get a higher score by squaring the targets. Stress, depending on event, compostite (match rifles) you run 1 mile before shooting, combat, two miles in full military gear.

Of all the shooting sports out there, I think the ITT is the most practical.

All events have their week points, and their strong points. Nothing short of combat can be realistic. Having been an infantryman in combat, if I were to design the most realistic course of fire as practical, I would use a modified ITT course where as one fire team fires as the second moves up, then it fires as the first team moves up. Not gonna happen because we do have to add a bit of safety.

Even your practical or tactical long range precision matches have defects. As in known distance targets. Somebody knows the distance. Who set out the targets, that person would have an advantage over the rest of the shooters. We all have data for our guns, the guy who sets up the range plugs in his data giving him the advantage (I've seen this). At least in HP everyone is on the same sheet of music there.

We all have our likes and dislikes, but in reality the only bad shooting is no shooting.

 

[fargo007]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tactical, relevent, reality?

Even your practical or tactical long range precision matches have defects. As in known distance targets. Somebody knows the distance. Who set out the targets, that person would have an advantage over the rest of the shooters. We all have data for our guns, the guy who sets up the range plugs in his data giving him the advantage (I've seen this). At least in HP everyone is on the same sheet of music there.

We all have our likes and dislikes, but in reality the only bad shooting is no shooting.

</div></div>

This isn't how it works.

Remember that in many practical matches, you don't even know the course of fire until it is revealed as you shoot it stage by stage. You are not given any time to prepare, train to execute specific movements or techniques, etc.

The people who know the entire course of fire, or put targets out in a UKD environment are usually not competing in the match for prizes. They may shoot it, but only for fun. If people are shooting it for score and helping to set targets, the playing field has to be leveled.

Even if it's not, it comes down to whether you can hit the target, or not. Just because one knows the exact distance doesn't mean the target is getting hit with the first round.

We are all on the same sheet of music too. It's just not the same song being played over and over again.

--Fargo007

 

[sinister]

Re: NRA involvment in Tactical Rifle competition

Gentlemen,

I've played IPSC, 3-Gun, skeet and trap (both American and international), international air, NRA small bore and highpower, bullseye rifle and pistol, military and combat rifle and pistol, Palma, F-class, running target, and a whole bunch of other disciplines. I've won some trinkets and danglies and been handed my ass.

I've shot and killed foul and both small and big game.

I've been shot at and shot back at my fellow man. After three decades I was fortunate enough to be able to stand aside for the next generation, still airtight and upright.

Every round of ammo I've fired from .22 short through 120mm has made me a better shooter, regardless the venue or game. My focus has been through the eyes of a hunter-killer whose hobbies and pastimes just happened to be with firearms.

Anyone who poohs and "Bullshit!"'s another's discipline has closed off his mind from development and improvement. Stasis never forwards development.

My eyes have been opened to all kinds of possibilities with the addition of technology including electronics, optics, and calibers that five (let alone ten or twenty) years ago would have immediately been decried as impractical.

Just because you don't do it doesn't mean it's worthless. An elk shooter has no requirement to bust multiple jihadis in plate body armor. A guy with a .338 Lapua isn't going to decimate a prairie dog town unless he's independently wealthy or Uncle Sam is buying his ammo. A Soldier may never get that kind of latitude with Range Control and unenlightened chains of command halfway up his backside.

HOW a rifleman gets to his goal isn't as important as performance on demand, whether it's to cover a night assault, win an Olympic Biathlon Gold Medal, or drop an elk, stag, or cape buffalo on a $15,000 once-in-a-lifetime hunt.

I ask that you keep your minds open rather than just throwing down, looking for a digital pie-fight.

There are very, very few conventional Army snipers that could even follow these discussions, let alone argue fine points. I doubt the NRA can do better, being as they're playing catch-up. A single, non-competing former SEAL at NRA Headquarters is trying to roll that boulder up-hill.

If NRA was serious there'd be a whole lot of Board attention. I think this is someone's pet rock to show worth to internal NRA heirarchy and audience.