So when's the next Rifle match at Harvard?

[Pyano]

That's the plan. If it turns out to suck, oh well, lesson learned.

It doesn't suck by any stretch, but there are obstacles. The major issue being the use of the 200/300 yard range. Harvard Sportsman's rules require anyone using that range to prequalify. How can we bring in non-members and allow them to shoot at the 200/300 when Harvard members can't unless qualified?

Like Supermoto said, no one wants a dumbed down match and as Dan S. has said in the past, using the 200/300 makes it a rifle match. A lot of thought has already gone into trying to overcome this obstacle with more to come. The action shooters had some previous experiance using alternative qualification procedures which proved inadequate and will not be repeated.

In the end, the board will have the final word so even if a plan is proposed, there is no guarantee it would be approved.

 

[Lugnut]

Wouldn't HSC be able to set up a hard ceiling or something to ensure rounds don't go over the berm? Mass Rifle has something like this. Maybe a temporary set up could work.

 

[Pyano]

Wouldn't HSC be able to set up a hard ceiling or something to ensure rounds don't go over the berm? Mass Rifle has something like this. Maybe a temporary set up could work.

That sounds like it would be a project. A huge project. Anything adequate I can think of sure wouldn't be temporary. My personal belief is nothing short of qualification will be sufficient and even then I'm not sure the board would vote favorably.

 

[Dan S]

Wouldn't HSC be able to set up a hard ceiling or something to ensure rounds don't go over the berm? Mass Rifle has something like this. Maybe a temporary set up could work.

Harvard's concern is rounds skipping off the floor of the range and going over the berm. One thing that Mass Rifle does is shoot through tubes...not much use for an action match. The baffles help when a shooter has an AD with the muzzle raised, but, on a 300 yard range it's not cost effective. These are issues that we here in the northeast have to deal with, since housing has moved so close to the clubs.

 

[Supermoto]

Bass river did a 3gun with tube you had to shoot thru... it was actually pretty cool. They dug a pit behind it. Harvard could do something similar but with the tubes off the ground. Or a port with a horizontal baffle just above and below it. Or just not use the 200/300 yard range, which for me would be great, since no matter how many times I'm told. I just refuse to sight my rifle in at the correct distance

 

[TheRoland]

Some complicated tube setup could be done for major events, but, I have to say, hitting a clay at 75 yards just in the pits wasn't exactly easy at the OCT 10 match. Even people with magnification tossed 2 (or more) rounds per target and hit 1/3 clays. Take out the bench (to force getting into a stable position by kneeling or prone), toss up some no-shoots, and you've got an awesome and decidedly rifle stage.

 

[Gammon]

Dan Hurley has said that Harvard ran a 3 gun match and the Area 7 3 gun match. I shot both of those. He also said, that shooters tended to prefer a rifle or shotgun match over the added equipment and preparation of multiple guns.

I must admit that I prefer a rifle or SG match to multi-gun. More shooting with each weapon, and we get enough pistol during the normal season. Perhaps I would feel differently if the multi-gun matches didn't require depositing the pistol in a "drop box" rather than reholstering.

 

[Gammon]

It doesn't suck by any stretch, but there are obstacles. The major issue being the use of the 200/300 yard range. Harvard Sportsman's rules require anyone using that range to prequalify. How can we bring in non-members and allow them to shoot at the 200/300 when Harvard members can't unless qualified?

Like Supermoto said, no one wants a dumbed down match and as Dan S. has said in the past, using the 200/300 makes it a rifle match. A lot of thought has already gone into trying to overcome this obstacle with more to come. The action shooters had some previous experiance using alternative qualification procedures which proved inadequate and will not be repeated.

In the end, the board will have the final word so even if a plan is proposed, there is no guarantee it would be approved.

Harvard has used the 200/300 yd range for practical rifle matches in the past. I don't think the club qualification rules are a problem because the shooters are being closely monitored by an RO.

The real problem is logistics; the long range stages take too long. ROs, tapers and/or plate setters have to travel 200 to 300 yards down range and back. I think such a stage is doable with steel plates (if they aren't destroyed) and plate setters who are shuttled down range and back via van or pickup. I worked one such match at Pelham where this system cut the time per shooter down to manageable levels. Using steel plates eliminated scoring and taping and transporting the plate setters by van reduced the set up time drastically.

Steel plates are a problem because they seem to be taking a real beating. I would gladly pay a premium, say $10 or $15 extra to shoot a rifle match with steel plates. Perhaps this would be enough to allow the hosting club to run such a match without losing money on equipment.

 

[TY43215]

I see the problem more as staff. I core group of people set up and run these matches and get burned out real quick. Everyone keeps throwing Harvard as the location. I see a great program in USPSA at Harvard and trying to add more of a burden on them will eventually ruin the existing program.

I am not a member at Harvard and due to distance from home, I never will be. I have worked major matches there as have many others. I have worked matches there that I didn't even shoot. I see them working hard to get staff and maybe that is the reason you don't see more. More people need to get involved in the set up, running, scoring, and tear down of matches if you want to see more.

For the match I worked there with a 300 yard stage, they used flashers (strobes) on targets so there was no reset just spotters calling the hits. We had one RO and one spotter there all weekend.

I know that I don't have the time to volunteer any more so I accept what is there and STFU on what is not. If I want to shoot and there is nothing in the area, I will have to be willing to travel. Wish I could have gone to the Maine three gun match. Maybe next year.

 

[ScottS]

IDPA multigun? YAWN!!!! No thank you. No more than 10 round strings on shotgun, no more than 18 with a rifle?

There's a good reason for this. They have to keep it revolving-rifle-friendly.

 

[jar]

I finally shot my first multigun at Hartford on Saturday. It used IDPA scoring, but kind of a mishmash of rules. It used what seem to be the standard divisions for everything but IDPA: Open, Tactical, Limited, and HeMan/Heavy Metal. Some stages required using cover and some didn't. Thankfully the SOs were very clear with what they expected at each stage.

I don't really care about the scoring system since I'm not competitive at these yet, IDPA, IMGA, or USPSA scoring would all be fine by me. I'm ok with IDPA style rules (cover, etc) but would prefer shoot 'em as you see 'em. The IDPA round count limits are just no fun. The stage round counts at the USCG match were nice and high, 48 round rifle only stage, 40 round pistol only, 30 round shotgun only, 10 shotgun + 28 rifle, etc. If I'm hauling out all the gear for 3 guns, I want to shoot a lot.

If someone steps up to MD a local multigun match, count me in for stage building and SO/RO no matter what the ruleset.

 

[NBPD3682]

I finally shot my first multigun at Hartford on Saturday. It used IDPA scoring, but kind of a mishmash of rules. It used what seem to be the standard divisions for everything but IDPA: Open, Tactical, Limited, and HeMan/Heavy Metal. Some stages required using cover and some didn't. Thankfully the SOs were very clear with what they expected at each stage.

I don't really care about the scoring system since I'm not competitive at these yet, IDPA, IMGA, or USPSA scoring would all be fine by me. I'm ok with IDPA style rules (cover, etc) but would prefer shoot 'em as you see 'em. The IDPA round count limits are just no fun. The stage round counts at the USCG match were nice and high, 48 round rifle only stage, 40 round pistol only, 30 round shotgun only, 10 shotgun + 28 rifle, etc. If I'm hauling out all the gear for 3 guns, I want to shoot a lot.

If someone steps up to MD a local multigun match, count me in for stage building and SO/RO no matter what the ruleset.

Nice job coming in second place on Stage 8!

 

[jar]

Nice job coming in second place on Stage 8!

All my good finishes are stats screw ups. My squad shot stage 8 first and the ROs told us it was stage 7. Our scores should be swapped between 7 and 8. I still did OK on that one though. I got all of the hits on the long range targets.