Idea for a Shooting Competition

[ny32182]

IDPA even does this from time to time by having a "pick up gun" used for a part of a stage. I was at one match (club level, thankfully) that finished a stage with a pick up revolver placed with two rounds loaded by the SO in random positions in the cylinder. So Bob might get "bangs" on his first two trigger pulls, while someone else has to click all the way around the cylinder to get the bangs and finish the stage.

Nothing like consistency there. "Pickup guns" would be one of the things I'd eliminate if I were king for a day on the rule change committee.

 

[perdurabo93]

I don't like it, because it defeats the purpose of shooting under stress. (testing your proficiency with your carry weapon)

Are you certain you'll always have YOUR particular weapon when in a self-defense situation? Wouldn't it be better to test yourself in situations where you might not have a choice of what weapon is available? Isn't it better to master MANY firearms rather than just a few?

 

[Sam1911]

We run a special "House Gun" match one month each year at my club. All firearms and ammo supplied by the club members and each stage is shot with the gun provided.

It is fun. It gets folks a little exposure to oddball guns they might not have tried before. There is a degree of "could you defend youself with ANY weapon?" to it. It is in no clear way indicative of anyone's particular skill with weapons. The better shooters are still generally better. The slower, less confident, shooters are still slower and less confident. It tends to re-enforce WHY we DON'T choose certain weapons for defensive tasks.

Having done this many times, I am far less interested in watching others go through a similar exercise than I might be otherwise.

 

[Sam1911]

Are you certain you'll always have YOUR particular weapon when in a self-defense situation?

No.

Wouldn't it be better to test yourself in situations where you might not have a choice of what weapon is available?

Better? No. Because the situation in which I'm defending myself with an unfamiliar weapon is far less likely than the already very remote chance that I'll have to defend myself with my own carry weapon.

Isn't it better to master MANY firearms rather than just a few?

Absolutely not. The more you scatter your practice time around between platforms the less attuned you are to making one specific gun work its very best in your hands. If you have a LOT of time and ammo money, you may be able to reach high levels of proficiency with more than one gun, but your primary is always your best bet and should be your focus.

Some US soldiers and Marines get a bit of familiarization training with the weapons of allies and enemies they might meet in the field. They seek to learn an overview of how those weapons function, and how they might make them work if they had to in some highly unlikely emergency. They in NO way attain "mastery" of any of them.

But this idea of competing with an unknown weapon has nothing to do with "mastering" many firearms. No one's going to show off their "mastery" of anything shooting a completely unfamiliar platform. There's a reason why we TRAIN with our arms.

 

[Justin]

The cost of implementing a system to issue all of the competitors identical pistols for each match disqualifies your idea from the get-go.

Bingo.
There's no shortage of people with no experience with administering a match who make posts on the internet along the lines of "Competition shooting as it is now sucks, and here's why..."

That said, I'm aware of a couple of matches that have undertaken what the OP is talking about.

The Allegheny Sniper Match awhile back used identically configured FN bolt action rifles with an option to buy the gun at the end of the match.

Locally, there was an action pistol match here several years ago that had all of the shooters using identical 1911s.

The problem with the OP's suggestion is one of logistics. In the case of the Allegheny match, the match organizers had to secure rifles, scopes, ammunition, slings, etc. from various manufacturers who were willing to provide them, pretty much at their cost.

For the pistol match, the entry fee for the match essentially included the purchase of a 1911, ammunition, holsters, and mag pouches.

Matches like this do exist, but the fundamental problem with them is that they are either prohibitively expensive for either the match director or the competitors. As something that you could run as a special match maybe once a year, that's fine, but there's no fundamental way you could run such a match on a monthly basis.

Even if you posit the notion of buying all of the equipment beforehand, issuing it at the match, and collecting it once the match is over, you're still going to have to deal with all sorts of logistical issues:

• Who provides the ammo every match?
• How is that ammunition paid for?
• How often are you going to replace the guns/holsters/magazines/mag pouches?
• Who ensures that the guns are all operating to the same functional level? After all, in order to keep things fair, you're going to have to add a gunsmith to the match staff just to ensure that everything is above-board.
• How do you keep people from cheating, e.g. "I know that gun number 6 shoots slightly more accurately than all of the others, so I'm going to make sure I get that one issued to me."
• Administratively, how do you deal with competitors who claim that they lost out due to receiving a gun that was out-of-spec?

In order to account for all of the above things, the match fees are going to have to be raised to cover the cost of gun maintenance, provide ammunition at every match for every competitor, and replace worn out magazines, holsters, and other gear.

As it stands, the average local match has an entry fee of between $15-$25. To do what you're suggesting would probably require a match entry fee of $50 or more, every month.

Most local matches have a hard enough time accumulating enough staff just to set up the stages and run the administrative side of things as it is. To pile a number of further requirements on top of that would probably result in a match that would be impossible to administer without adding to the number of staff members, would result in a much higher per-match fee for every competitor, and would probably be less fun, as it would require you to use a gun that may or may not be functional.



I compete in USPSA Production Division with a S&W M&P, and the only work that has been done to my gun is a trigger job. Other than that, the gun is bone stock. Such a trigger job is quite common among Production shooters, but to claim that it gives a game-winning advantage would be overstating things by several orders of magnitude. I've seen plenty of competitors using bone-stock guns who've placed at or near the top. Most of the modifications allowed under Production Division fall under "a thing that I personally prefer, but doesn't really offer a true competitive advantage."

After all, no matter how awesome my trigger job is, it's not going to make a difference if the guy I'm competing against finds a faster way to complete a stage. The practical shooting sports are much more about mindset than they are about equipment, even at the highest levels with shooters who are running $3K Open Guns.

 

[russ69]

I understand what the OP is trying to say. I'm not a fan of "race guns". I don't like guns that look like they are from outer space. I get it, but if you are active in just about any shooting sport, there are classes that only allow limited modifications. In high power rifle, you can shoot high master scores with a stock AR15 HBAR, maybe with a drop in trigger, and improved sights. That's only a few hundred over the cost of a basic gun. You can take that all the way to a distinguished shooter badge or the President's one hundred.
You can also shoot a Palma rifle in 308, that only allows certain loads or ammo disbursed at the line. The rifle is expensive but it's a level playing field.
At any rate, if you compete in the firearm sports, your travel and ammo expenses are costing you way more than the equipment needed to be competitive. Go out and shoot some matches, you'll have fun even if you finish last!

 

[Jon_Snow]

Another problem with the idea of having everyone shoot the same gun is fit. Have a match where everyone has to shoot a Glock 21, you just disadvantaged people with small hands. Getting a gun that fits you well is one of the things that's important across all forms of competition. If you can't make your gun fit you, you've hurt everyone you isn't a 5'10" man with typical arm, neck and/or hand size. That's not a measure of skill, it's just dumb luck.