User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/10/2012 12:11:08 PM EDT
Look for these to start popping up at major matches across the country. MGM ironman will obviously be using them. Rumor has it Texas Multi gun in two weeks will be also. Better hurry up and call MGM for yours before there all gone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2012 2:22:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Sorry, there is too much "liberal political correctness" about those targets for my liking. I'll stick with IPSC Metric targets thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2012 8:52:51 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Sorry, there is too much "liberal political correctness" about those targets for my liking. I'll stick with IPSC Metric targets thanks. same |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2012 2:42:45 PM EDT
[#3]
I agree with the above. The simplified targets won't appease the gun haters, nor will it make understanding scoring easier for those not associated with the sport. Not a fan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2012 4:45:20 PM EDT
[#4]
I like 'em. Does it make a difference what target we shoot? I'm under the impression we are trying to be as accurate and fast as we can, and not concerned with what the actual target looks like. Clay pigeons and steel plates aren't shaped like a person. I have shot at plenty of human like targets, real and paper. I just want to shoot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 10:57:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Are they scored the same? One center ring or two anywhere?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 11:29:26 AM EDT
[#6]
Yes, one in center (A) or two anywhere (B). The corners, outside the 18" circle, do not score anything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 12:19:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
I like 'em. Does it make a difference what target we shoot? I'm under the impression we are trying to be as accurate and fast as we can, and not concerned with what the actual target looks like. Clay pigeons and steel plates aren't shaped like a person. I have shot at plenty of human like targets, real and paper. I just want to shoot. I think people are going to gripe because the sport started out as a representation of possible real life scenarios. I'm in agreement with that general principle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 12:48:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like 'em. Does it make a difference what target we shoot? I'm under the impression we are trying to be as accurate and fast as we can, and not concerned with what the actual target looks like. Clay pigeons and steel plates aren't shaped like a person. I have shot at plenty of human like targets, real and paper. I just want to shoot. I think people are going to gripe because the sport started out as a representation of possible real life scenarios. I'm in agreement with that general principle. Yeah it used to be combat oriented back in the '80's. Now it's clearly a sport about shooting fast and accurately. Why else would I always hear "that $hit will get you killed on the street"? Lol!! The reactive targets are great for TV which is why they made a new target in the first place. Plus bullseye targets ate universally recognized by people line my grandmother who is a huge fan of the show! Check it out... 3 Gun Nation Pro Series Teaser |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 2:02:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Yeah it used to be combat oriented back in the '80's. Now it's clearly a sport about shooting fast and accurately. Why else would I always hear "that $hit will get you killed on the street"? Lol!! The practical shooting sports have ALWAYS been rooted in armed combat, just like karate or other martial arts. The fact that they are more sport than training does not negate the importance of principles. I'm as much of an "it's a sport stupid" guys as anyone - I loath IDPA because it is so dull and prescriptive - but equally I see the value of the sport's martial heritage in attracting new participation, and in anchoring our match design to some basic guidelines. If we sacrifice all martial links, we will find our match designs going in all kinds of random directions that will not be good for the sport. These targets, which I suspect come from the PC mindset of the NBC network, are symbolic of this potentially negative trend. JMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 3:52:15 PM EDT
[#10]
I don't shoot 3 gun to do anything but compete and I enjoy shooting. So I guess always isn't always anymore:). There are a whole heck of a lot more people out there that have firearms at home that we can attract to the action shooting sports that aren't looking for a way to better use firearms for defensive purposes. That's the crowd im in and the crowd I'm trying to bring into the SPORT.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 3:53:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like 'em. Does it make a difference what target we shoot? I'm under the impression we are trying to be as accurate and fast as we can, and not concerned with what the actual target looks like. Clay pigeons and steel plates aren't shaped like a person. I have shot at plenty of human like targets, real and paper. I just want to shoot. I think people are going to gripe because the sport started out as a representation of possible real life scenarios. I'm in agreement with that general principle. Yeah it used to be combat oriented back in the '80's. Now it's clearly a sport about shooting fast and accurately. Why else would I always hear "that $hit will get you killed on the street"? Lol!! The reactive targets are great for TV which is why they made a new target in the first place. Plus bullseye targets ate universally recognized by people line my grandmother who is a huge fan of the show! Check it out... 3 Gun Nation Pro Series Teaser I watch online, I'm familiar with the show. I enjoy watching as often as it gets posted. Clays and plates aren't man-shaped, they are what I would include in the "technical" portions of stages. I, personally, would prefer keeping the man-shaped targets begin to white-wash the origins. and think that moving away from those kinds of targets is going to . I'll keep watching either way. Hell I'm trying to get my wife ready for the local tactical rifle competition in August. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 5:24:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
I don't shoot 3 gun to do anything but compete and I enjoy shooting. So I guess always isn't always anymore:). There are a whole heck of a lot more people out there that have firearms at home that we can attract to the action shooting sports that aren't looking for a way to better use firearms for defensive purposes. That's the crowd im in and the crowd I'm trying to bring into the SPORT. I feel the same way - I enjoy 3-Gun as a sport and do not kid myself that it is any kind of tactical training. However, the martial origins of the sport make it much more interesting; they drive the "scenario based" stage designs that are different for every match (I find Bianchi Cup tiresome precisely because it is always the same); they drive the equipment rules (constraints in the "tactical" divisions clearly derive from combat-appropriate equipment); they drive the ammo (full powered centerfire vs. rimfire target ammo). I am old enough to have seen other shooting sports go down the path of political correctness in the hope that it will somehow make the anti-gunners accept the sport. I immigrated to the US from the UK, where our own National Rifle Association threw pretty much all other shooting sports under the bus in the late 90s in order to save (for a short time anyway) their beloved single-shot bolt-action rifles for their own High Power discipline. Hell, you only have to look at how the Olympics have changed - disciplines that used to involve full-power centerfire guns have migrates over the decades to .22 short and (increasingly) airguns. With these changes. global governments have felt increasingly justified in ratcheting the restrictions on civilian access to firearms. I can understand how top competitors might dream of growing the $$$ coming into the sport by making it more socially acceptable - who wouldn't like to be a full-time pro shooter. I just disagree that this is a good idea, and would hate to see 3-Gun going down the same path. You only have to look at IPSC President Nick Alexakos' vain attempts to get Practical Pistol accepted as an Olympic sport... after years of PC compromises, including the hideous IPSC Classic target that is now universal outside the US, we are no closer to Olympic respectability than we were when I shot my first match in 1983. I like the sport of 3-Gun just fine the way it is and, given its current growth curve, I suspect many others feel the same way. Ultimately, the market will decide - if match directors feel the need to become more politically correct, and this makes their match more popular, then the sport will go that way. If folks prefer matches with traditional "humanoid" targets, then those will be more popular. We will see 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2012 5:43:05 AM EDT
[#13]
Very well said, Richard.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2012 8:12:42 AM EDT
[#14]
I am not concerned with what the targets look like, or what sort of political agenda anyone may have regarding these new targets. All I know is that we may be facing targets like this at upcoming shoots, so I ordered 100 of them from MGM Targets because I hope to practice some live fire this year. Whether the new targets will change the sport for the better or the worse remains to be seen. I do know that the new targets used in 3GunNation sure make for more interesting viewing and I would like to think that the target design was based soley on that premise.
Oddly enough, my favorite targets to shoot in 3-gun are the MGM Spinner, MGM Flash targets, mini-poppers, clays, square steel plates on stands, and Texas Stars. None of these look like human silhouettes either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2012 11:59:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Our club plans on trying out the new targets for a few matches this year.
I can see why they went to the target they did for the Pro Series: It shows up much better on TV and of course there is the PC angle. The cardboard targets are an attempt to standardize things a bit while still making them convenient for clubs and other matches. Not sure I like the switch, but time will tell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2012 5:49:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't shoot 3 gun to do anything but compete and I enjoy shooting. So I guess always isn't always anymore:). There are a whole heck of a lot more people out there that have firearms at home that we can attract to the action shooting sports that aren't looking for a way to better use firearms for defensive purposes. That's the crowd im in and the crowd I'm trying to bring into the SPORT. I feel the same way - I enjoy 3-Gun as a sport and do not kid myself that it is any kind of tactical training. However, the martial origins of the sport make it much more interesting; they drive the "scenario based" stage designs that are different for every match (I find Bianchi Cup tiresome precisely because it is always the same); they drive the equipment rules (constraints in the "tactical" divisions clearly derive from combat-appropriate equipment); they drive the ammo (full powered centerfire vs. rimfire target ammo). I am old enough to have seen other shooting sports go down the path of political correctness in the hope that it will somehow make the anti-gunners accept the sport. I immigrated to the US from the UK, where our own National Rifle Association threw pretty much all other shooting sports under the bus in the late 90s in order to save (for a short time anyway) their beloved single-shot bolt-action rifles for their own High Power discipline. Hell, you only have to look at how the Olympics have changed - disciplines that used to involve full-power centerfire guns have migrates over the decades to .22 short and (increasingly) airguns. With these changes. global governments have felt increasingly justified in ratcheting the restrictions on civilian access to firearms. I can understand how top competitors might dream of growing the $$$ coming into the sport by making it more socially acceptable - who wouldn't like to be a full-time pro shooter. I just disagree that this is a good idea, and would hate to see 3-Gun going down the same path. You only have to look at IPSC President Nick Alexakos' vain attempts to get Practical Pistol accepted as an Olympic sport... after years of PC compromises, including the hideous IPSC Classic target that is now universal outside the US, we are no closer to Olympic respectability than we were when I shot my first match in 1983. I like the sport of 3-Gun just fine the way it is and, given its current growth curve, I suspect many others feel the same way. Ultimately, the market will decide - if match directors feel the need to become more politically correct, and this makes their match more popular, then the sport will go that way. If folks prefer matches with traditional "humanoid" targets, then those will be more popular. We will see
One of the most eloquently written arguments I have ever read here. Very impressive sir. As a guy who has been shooting for over 2 decades, but never competed, and just now starting to seriously look into 3 gun, I was quite discouraged reading this and other stuff indicating 3 gun may be bowing to PC, your points hit home. If I find that is the case, I assure you I will look elsewhere or just keep doing what I'm doing. Sad when we think by watering down what we do, we might somehow gain approval from those whose only acceptable outcome is eradication of our 2nd amendment rights. Better to die on your feet than...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2012 12:59:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Sorry I'm late to the thread...
Quoted:
I feel the same way - I enjoy 3-Gun as a sport and do not kid myself that it is any kind of tactical training. However, the martial origins of the sport make it much more interesting; they drive the "scenario based" stage designs that are different for every match (I find Bianchi Cup tiresome precisely because it is always the same); they drive the equipment rules (constraints in the "tactical" divisions clearly derive from combat-appropriate equipment); they drive the ammo (full powered centerfire vs. rimfire target ammo). I am old enough to have seen other shooting sports go down the path of political correctness in the hope that it will somehow make the anti-gunners accept the sport. I immigrated to the US from the UK, where our own National Rifle Association threw pretty much all other shooting sports under the bus in the late 90s in order to save (for a short time anyway) their beloved single-shot bolt-action rifles for their own High Power discipline. Hell, you only have to look at how the Olympics have changed - disciplines that used to involve full-power centerfire guns have migrates over the decades to .22 short and (increasingly) airguns. With these changes. global governments have felt increasingly justified in ratcheting the restrictions on civilian access to firearms. I can understand how top competitors might dream of growing the $$$ coming into the sport by making it more socially acceptable - who wouldn't like to be a full-time pro shooter. I just disagree that this is a good idea, and would hate to see 3-Gun going down the same path. You only have to look at IPSC President Nick Alexakos' vain attempts to get Practical Pistol accepted as an Olympic sport... after years of PC compromises, including the hideous IPSC Classic target that is now universal outside the US, we are no closer to Olympic respectability than we were when I shot my first match in 1983. I like the sport of 3-Gun just fine the way it is and, given its current growth curve, I suspect many others feel the same way. Ultimately, the market will decide - if match directors feel the need to become more politically correct, and this makes their match more popular, then the sport will go that way. If folks prefer matches with traditional "humanoid" targets, then those will be more popular. We will see
I agree 100% without the martial aspects we could all save a lot of money and shoot BB guns or stay at home and play video games. We could once take pride in that through the constant user feedback from action shooting sports we developed better technology and techniques that could be used by Military and Law Enforcement personnel in defense of our country and our communities. When I attended the first AMU 3 Gun at Fort Benning in 2005, the commander of the AMU at that time told me and several people in my squad that one of the reasons they were holding the match was "to find better ways to kill the enemies of the United States". The amount of technology that has come out of competitive shooting and has been adopted or adapted to real world use is huge. Most of the modern tactical trainers are using shooting techniques that came out of the competition shooting world. The further we deviate from the martial basis of shooting, the less relevant this will be. 3 gun will become Bullet Golf, just using different "clubs" depending on the course. Quoted:
There are a whole heck of a lot more people out there that have firearms at home that we can attract to the action shooting sports that aren't looking for a way to better use firearms for defensive purposes. Gun sales and recent NRA surveys do not bear this out. The posts on the forum here should be a good indicator that it isn't the case; a constant stream of people asking whether or not their carry/home defense/duty guns are useable for 3 gun or what division they could use them in. The guns that are selling in the largest numbers are not ideally suitable for 3 Gun How many mossberg 590s sell vs the 930JM, how many M4s does Stag sell for example vs 3Gs? How many Glock 19s are sold vs 34s? An M4 Carbine with a red dot sight is not an ideal configuration for competing in 3 Gun. An 870 or 500/590 is not an ideal shotgun for 3 Gun. The reasons people buy guns are partly recreation, partly preparedness/self defense. I have always pushed Action Shooting Sports as an excellent place to develop gun handling and marksmanship. Tactics, the last component of the combat triad have to be learned and practiced elsewhere. I want the people that bought guns for self defense or duty use coming to matches to get better at shooting. Most of the new blood I have seen come into competitive shooting in the 12 years I have been involved in it are people looking for a venue to practice with their carry/self-defense/duty gear. The drive to better themselves through competition is there because they believe their lives might depend on their skill at arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2012 11:58:14 AM EDT
[#18]
FAIL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2012 6:51:48 AM EDT
[#19]
That target needs an outside border. At the Larue match I saw a guy on one of the teams successfully argue a "grease mark" on the very edge of the target was a hit.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
