Years ago at one of the NFA national matches there were bowling pins on stands at 50 yards. I don't really think distance is an issue at a match since all shooters have the same target presentation. With my m-16 iron sights zeroed at 25 rounds it would impact 1" low at near point blank (there used to be occasions when paper was close and the engagement was pointed which was sight plane below the shoulder) and 1" high at 50 yards. As a hunter, 50 yards is not that tough a shot even in full auto. All that can, or should, be stipulated in a rule manual is minimum engagement for safety. It is my thought that any rulebook should not box competitiors in terms of distance or targets as long as it is fair for all.

Paul : -)#

Not everyone has a M16/9, MP5, Sterling, etc. with the rigid stocks and better iron sights. I feel to make the long shots more fair, don't include no-shoots or make the targets Bonus targets.

I agree that with practice, practice, practice, anyone can become a better shooter with what they have. But due to the fact that some SMGs are better designes than others, I still don't think it is fair to some to have a SMG stage where no-shoots are right next to (or over-lapping) the 20+ yard shoot targets. You could put a clay bird at 50yds, just don't put it right in front of a no-shoot......

I don't see why they would have to. I own 2 uzis with the factory metal stocks on them. My full size uzi stock has the traditional wiggle in it. For arguments sake I have shot a M11/m10 about 4-5 times in my life so far and I'll ask one of our M11 shooters to bring one out at our next match so I can take a few shots at 30-40 yrds with it. I'll video tape the whole thing and post the results. I think the M10/M11 family of guns would have the notible reputation as having the preceived shortest engagement distance due to it's small size (Mini Uzi isn't much better). I'll take a few shots in auto and some on semi and see what the result is. I just can not see making things easier on competitors as a solution to good competition.

At the end of the day I want my skills tested, I want to understand where I truly lie in the sea of competitors and I want to learn how to get better by watching those who are better than me. I don't want easy street so I can say I ranked well on something I already knew I could do very well.

I have to agree with Paul and say that the distance should not be the issue as long as it is inside the effective range of the firearms. As long as all shooters are presented with the same target it is fair.

I think we are all in agreement that an events stages need to be posted ahead of time with the only exception being the setup for a blind stage. If you have not had a chance to shoot something which you know nothing about I urge you to do so. You will find the truth (for better or worse) about your decision making abilities while under the gun

An Example
A perfect example is a stage which was set up by one of the RO's a few months back. The bay was blocked off and at the end of the action range and when a competitor was called to the line he/she grabbed the firearm by the buttstock and was walked to the start table. The firearm was placed on the table and a magazine beside it.

The Rules
Shoot the red targets from the red , shoot the blue targets from blue
Once you go forward you may not come back

Shooter understand? (yes)
*beep*

The majority of the shooters shot from all 4 positions when in fact they could have shot from only 2 (myself included).

.

I am not saying don't challenge shooters by making all the targets BIG and CLOSE. I am saying don't add extra possible penalties by placing no-shoots near "far" and "small" targets. The better shooters will spend less time engaging these type targets (ie: less misses). I feel that some shooters will get discouraged at SMG competition to be faced with a "if I miss that small target way out there, I might hit the no-shoot and get penalized". Where if the shooter just took more time and ammo to hit that small target(s) way out there without the risk of a no-shoot hit, then I don't think the shooter will think they were put at an unfair advantage. They know their own shooting skills (and not everyone is a good shot with a SMG).

On the other hand..... You could place no-shoots in the area to prevent "spray & pray" shooting. Just not close no-shoots on IPSC targets past 25yds or on small (less than 6"x6") steel targets past 15yds. You guys must try to remember, not all the shooters that come to the SMG matches are looking to push themselves to the limits of their ability. Some could care less who brought their "A-Game" to the match that day.... Some just want to shoot the stages and have nothing but fun, and I don't think they would like to see a "trap stage" in the match. By "trap stage" I mean a stage where "extreme" accuracy is required or you get one or more no-shoot penalties. Yes, you can challenge them with smaller targets at greater distances, but leave the no-shoots out of the picture.

Bottom line guys..... IMHO.... We are trying to build up SMG competition, not scare the shooters away because the stages are too tough. Please consider this..... With pistol, rifle and carbine matches, it is "sight picture and squeeze" the trigger for ONE shot (where the trigger pull is usually a lot lighter than most SMGs). With SMGs it is not only "sight picture" but controlling the trigger on full-auto (and SMG trigger pulls can vary greatly). Yes, the subject of this thread is USING THE SELECTOR for more accurate shots, but again... not all SMGs have a selector.

Yes, I agree with having small and/or distant targets in SMG matches, just don't create Trap Stages..........


.

I guess we got off on a tangent.

The question was to allow select option targets and perhaps my example was not the perfect one to use. The bottom line is that we create something which facilitates safe and fair play on all levels. Each and every local match can and will govern how hard they design their courses and that wll be dictated by the shooters and coordinator. I'd expect a state, regional, or national match to test the competitors skills.

I think we lost sight of that since saying "yes new target type is cool" only adds it to the play book. It does not mandate it has be used which perhaps was floating around in a few peoples minds when they clicked now. The same goes for right and left hand shooting, positions etc... It's all up to the stage designers.

I don't see any unfair advantage by setting up some challenging shots. Everyone doesn't have the same skill set and that's the whole point of competition. Those who excell serve as an example to those who are learning. You can't expect to ace every stage every time.

For a new shooter to take a few shots at a target and miss a heck of a lot is the norm, not something we should steer away from. They expect it to not get 1st we expect they will have questions and problems and that is how things go. As long as there are encouraging voices telling them "good job! here is a little advice on ... See you next month!". I bet the next time they come against that same target be it a texas star, a 4" plate or a huge gong they will do their best to apply what they learned after missing it last time.

Remember my proposal had at maximum a 10% as select option targets. So in a 5 stage match with 40 targets per stage (200 total) you are talking 4 targets (2%) total. That's pretty small.

I find that a lot of the stages at local matches favor older sub-guns that have low cyclic rates because they can easily pull single shots while technically being on auto. I really don't see the difference between this and someone switching to semi.

I think we should be able to choose when we do and don't use full auto, because sometimes it is a real advantage and other times it isn't. In regular 3 gun matches that let us use Auto this is what we do.

Well, I don't anyway!
Forward trigger is Full Auto. Rear trigger is Semi

I'm all for having more precision shots. I know that our course designers are aware of the different types of firearms at any given match and they change-up the courses of fire to accomodate the various types of subbies.
That is what makes you want to step up and better your effort, knowing sometimes the odds and not exactly in your favor. And even if they are for the other guy it doesen't mean he can't have a equipment malfunction or bad ammo management.

OK, I gotta ask about this. Why and for what purpose would a semi auto optional environment for a full auto subgun match be a good thing? Aside from the problems it could introduce for the RO and scoring, what would be the benefit. I would contend that a submachine gun in pistol caliber is just as accurate for long shots as semi, at least for the first round. A closed bolt gun or an open bolt gun will have the same physics applied when the trigger is pulled in full as semi for that first round. If the second round gets thrown away, so be it, but a distant target can be hit without a selector switch. Several shooters argue about this and that setup or target array being advantaged to the single tap and we are now talking about allowing this as an option. I guess I have missed the point. For a semi class all is semi. For a full auto class, why would we not want full all the time? Help me Obi Wan...Help me.

Paul : -)#

Good question. In my mind the question comes down to one of two definitions of what the sub gun competitions are aiming to achieve.

Sub gun competitions are...

#1 a test of the skill of competitors in full auto mode.

#2 a test of the over all skill of the competitor with their firearm.

I think those are the two camps. I think #2 is the more accurate example and what I am constantly trying to improve in myself. I want to have great overall sklll so I am a more well rounded shooter.

As part of that process, knowing how and when to switch to semi and back is vital. The NFA had it in their manual as "roll over" technique. I liken only shooting a sub gun in one mode the same as if you only knew how to drive a car forward or in one or two gears. The other gears are there for a reason, why not use them?

From a competitor standpoint I want to be tested. And knowing that I just blazed through 25 targets in full auto and now have to shoot a small 4" plate at 25 yards off the head of a no shoot... I can go semi if I choose or I can remain on full auto... what to do.. what to do... hmm...

Depending on the firearm I am using and my focus at the time I may stay in full auto, I might switch to semi if allowed or I might even forget I have an option. If I am running a stock Mac-10 in 45 I am going to switch to semi... if the target seems a heck of alot smaller and the no shoots seem a heck of a lot closer than I remember, I'm going to semi... If on the other hand I feel confident and I'm running a Serling, Uzi, max-11, etc.. or something with a slower ROF I might just pull a single and engage it in auto.

The point I am trying to get across is that if one or two targets throughout a stage are selector optioned, the shooter has the choice of using their firearm to its fullest potential and thus reaching their fullest potential as an operator and competitor.

My proposal was to allow only a few of these target types in any match. I firmly believe that a true competition should extract skill from it's competitors on every level possible.

I think this is an excellent key point. One asks, how would you be able to tell if the shooter switched back to auto and started to reengage? With the Todd scenario who cares, it would be the last target to engage. With the Andy scenario, I would put a paper target close to the shooter after the "semi-shot" so when he or she engages the paper and forgets to put the gun back into full, you will get the "Oh S**T" factor as they went for the burst and did not get it. This is a proven fact with our shoots. Put a paper target 7yds away from the shooter in a full auto match and 10 out of 10 shooters will engage in full auto whether they realize it or not and when they can't because they forgot to switch the selector back there in lies the -10 sec, only because they WILL let YOU know. We are talking about proper match design and the option to do so if you wish. If you do not want to then DO NOT DO IT. We have been doing this sort of thing for many years now and have never had a problem with it, but if you ask several of your local shooters, they will tell you, absolutely it helped me!

Some have posted a point of view that some smgs don’t have safety selectors, well I personally have never seen a fast rate of fire smg without one. The only smgs without safety selectors has always been one of slow rate of fire. Example: MP-38/40 and just few others mostly before 1946. If I’m wrong about this please let me know about any factory design smg over 600rpm without a selector.

I’m personally for anything that will encourage more f/a strings in all matches. If this will help with that, and it seems it can to me. Lets go for it!

On the plus side, some of the competitive smg shooters on a limited budget don’t have to drop a ton of money to lower RPMs on smgs, (Macs, MP5ks, Mini&Micro Uzi’s and Glock18s) for match set-ups dominated by so many one hit drop targets.

Also dropping the rule of f/a selector mode will make it easer for the RO, not having to watch the trigger fingers of Aug 9mm and Beretta M38 match shooters. This will free the RO to consecrate more on safety when encountering these types of smgs.