3 Gun/Multigun as Proving Ground?

[ExplorinInTheWoods]

So does anyone else think that competitive shooting like 3gun or multigun is a good way to test guns, optics, accessories and other gear? I recently thought that other than taking it to a class or running your own independent tests that it's a good way to evaluate a product or even a new shooting style/stance/grip. As far as evaluating a muzzle device, trigger, or optic I feel 3 gun is probably the best place since you're getting to put it through it's paces and you can kind of compare it to how others on the range are doing. They always say that if you want to break something give it to a 3 gun guy, but people are so concerned with durability tests, how about is this practical or does it feel good in use? That's awesome you can throw it on the ground run it over, and light it on fire and it still performs but is it a product that I'm going to actually enjoy using or is it one that's practical to use? I think 3 gun is a good way to evaluate this because you're going to be running around shooting at multiple targets at varying distances and you're able to get a real feel for how it performs.

[glocktogo]

So does anyone else think that competitive shooting like 3gun or multigun is a good way to test guns, optics, accessories and other gear? I recently thought that other than taking it to a class or running your own independent tests that it's a good way to evaluate a product or even a new shooting style/stance/grip. As far as evaluating a muzzle device, trigger, or optic I feel 3 gun is probably the best place since you're getting to put it through it's paces and you can kind of compare it to how others on the range are doing. They always say that if you want to break something give it to a 3 gun guy, but people are so concerned with durability tests, how about is this practical or does it feel good in use? That's awesome you can throw it on the ground run it over, and light it on fire and it still performs but is it a product that I'm going to actually enjoy using or is it one that's practical to use? I think 3 gun is a good way to evaluate this because you're going to be running around shooting at multiple targets at varying distances and you're able to get a real feel for how it performs.

Speaking only for myself, I've taken serious use guns to matches and uncovered flaws that run the gamut from usability to reliability. When you put a gun and your skillset on the clock and shooting from unorthodox positions, gremlins tend to appear. A three day class might not uncover what a single stage does and vice versa. In a perfect world you'd take classes AND shoot matches. :)

[Nowski87]

I have thought like this for a while. With in reason of course, not too many matches are going to allow plate carriers or battle belts but for the testing of an optic, trigger, or any other widget it's perfectly fine. Better than waiting until that 400 dollar class you saved up for and find out you don't like something or doesn't work as advertised.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[ExplorinInTheWoods]

I have thought like this for a while. With in reason of course, not too many matches are going to allow plate carriers or battle belts but for the testing of an optic, trigger, or any other widget it's perfectly fine. Better than waiting until that 400 dollar class you saved up for and find out you don't like something or doesn't work as advertised.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I use my HSGI suregrip battle belt in 3 gun, yes you're right they might not let you run around in a plate carrier, but you can always ask right? But I agree and that was partially my point in that classes are expensive even from trainers who aren't big name. You have the cost of the class anywhere from $3-900 depending on who it, the gas money to get there, then on top of that some classes dictate you have 1K rounds with you. Going out and competing in a match allows a person to test something out that they wouldn't get to do at a normal range and comes at a cheaper price than going to a class.

[Nowski87]

I agree I would rather spend 20 bucks and 200 rounds at a club match to find flaws than 200 buck and 1k rounds at a class. I also think more people need to look at reliability for their uses, so many want that to hell and back snake eater gun but the most they will do is a club match.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[ExplorinInTheWoods]

I agree I would rather spend 20 bucks and 200 rounds at a club match to find flaws than 200 buck and 1k rounds at a class. I also think more people need to look at reliability for their uses, so many want that to hell and back snake eater gun but the most they will do is a club match.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Went I see people doing some of these stress tests that stuff makes me cringe because these tests don't really do anything besides show hey I beat a gun against a tree or I set an optic on fire. But I rather find out hey my rifle can take me running it hard for a day, or hey my pistol functions and I can hit targets 3-25 yds out.

[Leaveammoforme]

I've heard "It's never done that before" countless times at local matches. Stuff that will never show up at a bench. Throw in a little movement and rough'ish handling and problems become apparent.

Optics dying, free floats coming loose, muzzle devices spinning off, ultra awesome super thin handguards too hot to hold, BUIS nowhere close to being zero'd, extensions coming loose, "wow my suppressor got warm", QD slings QD'ing themselves, mis-adjusted magazine carriers littering the stage with full magazines, non-retained magazines hitting ground and barfing the remaining ammo and WML's falling off just to name a few.

I'm a big proponent of local matches. It's an awesome and cost effective way for people to vet equipment. And dare I say, maybe even learn a thing or two.

[Failure2Stop]

I think that competitive shooting is a good test of skill and technique, and a poor predictor of gear suitability for anything other than competitive shooting. Optics sort of bridge the two; you can see if the reticle picks up, and if you can get hits, but it won't tell much about durability, low-light or night performance, or non-obvious targeting suitability.

[ExplorinInTheWoods]

I'm not saying it's an end all be all but it's good to get out see what you and your stuff can do and if you actually like what you sunk money into.

[Leaveammoforme]

I'm not saying it's an end all be all but it's good to get out see what you and your stuff can do and if you actually like what you sunk money into.

Yep. It lets people see rifles, like say a KAC, keep running when the RRA they brought croaked on stage one. RRA guy gets him a quality rifle. Starts actually finishing matches. Wants to improve and seeks out training. On and on. It's all steps.

[glocktogo]

I think that competitive shooting is a good test of skill and technique, and a poor predictor of gear suitability for anything other than competitive shooting. Optics sort of bridge the two; you can see if the reticle picks up, and if you can get hits, but it won't tell much about durability, low-light or night performance, or non-obvious targeting suitability.

I've seen too many people bring their defensive equipment to matches and have it take a dump on them to completely agree. I'm not saying it speaks to suitability for particular needs, but it certainly exposes casual use gear masquerading as defensive gear. It also exposes poor setup, tuning, maintenance, manufacturing defects (I once discovered an agency issued, factory .40 with a 9mm frame, which was a problem because the frame was keeping it from feeding correctly) and a host of other issues. I've lost count of the number of guns I've fixed over a plastic barrel at matches when they wouldn't make it through a stage, only to have them finish the match with no further malfunctions. The owner usually walks away with increased knowledge and confidence.

For a $10-20 entry fee, that's a solid ROI. :)

[Ron3]

It's largely what made me leave the AK.

I have been shooting ak's since I was a boy and had professional training. But I couldn't ignore that other rifles could get hits AND run reliably.
I learned the ak was slower to run than many other rifles. Trying to get hits on a 300 yd steel torso target with an 7.62x39 AK firing russian ammi on a windy day for time? Yea...luckily I had a 3x scope but it took way too many rounds.

Mind you several guys with RDS equipped AR's give up after not connecting at all at that range.

The matches are a good way to keep up your gear and practice weapon manipulation under some stress.

[Jesse Tischauser]

So does anyone else think that competitive shooting like 3gun or multigun is a good way to test guns, optics, accessories and other gear? I recently thought that other than taking it to a class or running your own independent tests that it's a good way to evaluate a product or even a new shooting style/stance/grip. As far as evaluating a muzzle device, trigger, or optic I feel 3 gun is probably the best place since you're getting to put it through it's paces and you can kind of compare it to how others on the range are doing. They always say that if you want to break something give it to a 3 gun guy, but people are so concerned with durability tests, how about is this practical or does it feel good in use? That's awesome you can throw it on the ground run it over, and light it on fire and it still performs but is it a product that I'm going to actually enjoy using or is it one that's practical to use? I think 3 gun is a good way to evaluate this because you're going to be running around shooting at multiple targets at varying distances and you're able to get a real feel for how it performs.

Most firearm enthusiasts simply don't shoot their guns and gear enough to really know how reliable or unreliable they really are.

Competitions simply give most of us a fun means of using/testing our equipment. Heck I trust my Comp guns way more then my carry & hunting guns simply because I know how many rounds it takes to turn them from accurate to less accurate and reliable to unreliable. Heck I'll never put 10,000 rounds through my G42 or my 6.8 SPC. It's just not feasible.

[ExplorinInTheWoods]

Ha who could afford 10K rounds of 6.8, but you are right that a lot of people don't test their guns out past taking it to a range and putting a box or two through it and firing it in a static and controlled manner. I'm not saying you need to go melt your barrel or see how many times you can bang it against a tree before something breaks off but for you night stand pistol a USPSA or IDPA match might be good to test it out, if you want to see how good your SHTF guns are go try them at a match.

[Failure2Stop]

I've seen too many people bring their defensive equipment to matches and have it take a dump on them to completely agree. I'm not saying it speaks to suitability for particular needs, but it certainly exposes casual use gear masquerading as defensive gear. It also exposes poor setup, tuning, maintenance, manufacturing defects (I once discovered an agency issued, factory .40 with a 9mm frame, which was a problem because the frame was keeping it from feeding correctly) and a host of other issues. I've lost count of the number of guns I've fixed over a plastic barrel at matches when they wouldn't make it through a stage, only to have them finish the match with no further malfunctions. The owner usually walks away with increased knowledge and confidence.

For a $10-20 entry fee, that's a solid ROI. :)

Gotcha, agreed, though my perspective is coming from the completely opposite side: just because your gun can work for 30 seconds doesn't mean much, and just because your gear holds some stuff in a match doesn't mean that it will be suitable for much else.

Competition weeds out inefficiencies, and that's good for the community.

[Alaskapopo]

So does anyone else think that competitive shooting like 3gun or multigun is a good way to test guns, optics, accessories and other gear? I recently thought that other than taking it to a class or running your own independent tests that it's a good way to evaluate a product or even a new shooting style/stance/grip. As far as evaluating a muzzle device, trigger, or optic I feel 3 gun is probably the best place since you're getting to put it through it's paces and you can kind of compare it to how others on the range are doing. They always say that if you want to break something give it to a 3 gun guy, but people are so concerned with durability tests, how about is this practical or does it feel good in use? That's awesome you can throw it on the ground run it over, and light it on fire and it still performs but is it a product that I'm going to actually enjoy using or is it one that's practical to use? I think 3 gun is a good way to evaluate this because you're going to be running around shooting at multiple targets at varying distances and you're able to get a real feel for how it performs.

Yes overall its a pretty good tests of equipment and gear. As for durablity we throw guns in barrels bang them against barricades etc. Not a bad acutal use test.
Pat

[IndianaBoy]

In general yes. With some exceptions. Some 3-gun triggers are probably on the light side for serious use. Most muzzle devices for 3-gun are so loud, that they are impractical for other purposes.

Otherwise, 3-gunners treat guns and gear more harshly than most. It is interesting to watch someone show up at their first match with a gun all decked out with tidbits. Usually they wind up dissatisfied and next time their rifle is mostly slick.

[CAVDOC]

Between serious use gear and competition there is a lot of cross pollination for sure. Things proven in combat get used in competition and some competition gear gets refined and proven to the point it is combat ready. I have been shooting long enough to remember when the first aimpoints came to the competitive world - short battery life unreliable and fragile. Competition demands refined them to the point they were battle worthy.

[danpass]

My last rifle class reminded me of the need to use at least a little blue loctite on somewhat important things .... like the safety lol.

[1986s4]

Competition as shown me the deficiencies of my gear and my interaction with it many times. The clock brings out nervousness in man and machine. Hard use combined with training reveals many more. Personal examples:
I used to like Froglube but after getting 800 rounds into a 2000 round test I found out it wasn't so good [it gummed up everything].
Same pistol, new test; found out at 600 rounds it didn't like one brand of cheap ammo when it got dirty. A feed ramp polish and throat job fixed it. Same test: one brand of magazine caused failure to go into battery.
I would not have found any of this out in competition alone.