In some respects they can be the same. Good kit is good kit, regardless of other factors. Where the good game shooters lean is reliability, speed, then durability. Where the tactical shooters lean is reliability, durability, then speed.
Printable View
I'd say that pretty well covers it as far as comparing it to a straight-up game gun.
However, what are you giving up compared to a fighting gun?
Battlecomp has more flash and noise than a flashhider.
Heavy barrel increases the weight load of the fighter.
Barrel length gets a little hairy due to NFA, but mil guys don't have to worry about it. Kinda depends on what your benchmark is for "short."
"Better buffering" could also compromise reliability as the gun becomes more fouled.
Brazillian handguard limits placement of lights, lasers, etc on an absolute fighting gun.
Rob this is exactly how I look at it.
I'm not a gamer even though I play the game. I play the game in order to get trigger time on my carbine........the carbine that I would use in a SD/HD situation.
And, I'm lucky enough that Hootiewho, who is a Vickers REI, lays out some really challenging stages.
If you want to play games, 3-gun, whatever and win, then yeah....I would say that special rifles are needed in order to do so. Especially if you are going up againist others who do have an "edge" with their setups.
The 3-gun thing is just not for me. I'm a practical kind of person and find it unrealistic to be shooting clay pigeons with birdshot and somehow call that "tactical".
If that is what you like, then great. Just not me.
What I would really like, and I know they are held in places, is a 2-gun match. Carbine/Pistol. More realistic from a "fighting" /self defense, primary/secondary standpoint. I think it's true that most of us, if confronted by a threat(s) and had time to prepare, would have a pistol on the hip and a carbine slung.
Games are fun, I just like more practical shooting.
Some nice sticks on here. :D
My "Go Fast" carbine:
- LMT MRP piston upper receiver
- S&W M&P 15 lower receiver
- PWS FSC556 comp
- Troy BUIS
- Chip Mcormick single stage match trigger (3.5 lbs)
- Magpul VFG, mags, pistol grip, and UBR stock
- Slash's anti-tilt H2 buffer
- TLR-1 flashlight
- VTAC sling
- Eotech 512/ACOG TA31F (depending on what mood I'm in)
She's a bit heavy for an AR (around 9.5 pounds). There's almost zero recoil and rise, very close to .22lr The weight of the UBR helps balance out the Piston MRP's front heaviness. I'm on my second MRP barrel on this guy. Other than some issues with carrier tilt, its been a great weapon.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-M...-10-47_659.jpg
FWIW, the matches I ran were predicated on all of this. And rather than mandate against certain "gaming" techniques and strategies we would instead employ certain COF design rationale (such as starting stages with dowloaded mags and limiting subsequent mag capacity to force reloads and not reward Beta mags and such).
I have no idea if they are still being run that way.
I shoot USPSA to win, but win within the limitations of the gear I arrive with meaning my Glock 19 in a carry holster. I think if there were more 3-gun available here I'd approach that the same way.
I hear a lot, however, about how game guns can be unreliable while fighting guns cannot. I'm not convinced that's the case, nor am I convinced that we now have to trade one thing for another in terms of giving up something else to get reliability.
So what are you saying? You think the A5 buffer used with full pressure ammo works the same as a JP low mass carrier and light buffer paired with underpowered ammo? You think a Battlecomp reduces muzzle flip as much as an SCJ Titan? I've shot both comps and I disagree. Not sure about the ammo/buffers.
ETA: re-reading my post, my tone "sounds" kinda hostile. I don't mean it that way, those are genuine questions.
No, I'm not, please don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head.
What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that people with no foot in the other camp are quick to dismiss things they know nothing about. If the "game gun" can be shown to be just as reliable as the "fighting gun" (and there is no reason it can't be), then what are we gaining by ignoring their hardware? and while the competition shooter won't die if his game gun goes down, for a serious competitor they might wish they had, and to the average AR nudnik on the internet death is not really a serious consequence of his "home defense" AR failing at gun skool either. He'll just go back to the bag, drop off his 9 iron, and grab his sand wedge.
The distinction between reliability and durability is important to make.
18'' rifle-gas, for example, can be temperamental in extreme cold reliability wise (short-stroking). Softer shooting gas systems can also have more issues when the rifle is extremely dirty with carbon buildup etc. So at the extreme edge of "speed" I believe there is a requisite sacrifice in reliability. When have you ever eaten a free lunch in this hobby / profession / sport before?
Look at 14.5'' Midlength vs 14.5'' Carbine. The carbine will be more reliable with underpowered ammunition, when extremely cold or extremely dirty. You're about to ask for empirical data. I have none, but this is a conclusion that a logical person could arrive at a priori.
Durability, again a priori, seems to be on the side of the softer shooting gas systems. Mean time between bolt failures, it stands to reason, will be longer for the lower pressure systems.
So the goal then, for the tactical shooter / gun manufacturer, is to strike a perfect balance between speed / good firing characteristics / long term durability and on the other side, reliability in adverse conditions. These two sides plot inversely on a Cartesian Graph.
Obviously you know all of this and there's nothing groundbreaking here (unless you disagree...I would like to hear your argument if so). But I think the answers to your questions become obvious without having to define "tactical speed" and "game speed." The guns are what they are, and certain guns just make good tactical guns and others make good game guns, regardless of what language or definitions you impose on them.
Considering all of the "virtues" we look for and all the "downsides" we try to avoid in optic selection, I think the Prismatic is simply a unique compromise. IMO it is not any more or less "tactical" than other popular options, which are compromises as well.
When I Google "Prismatic review" and read some of the links (mostly comments on gun boards - little in formal, objective reviews), I remained convinced that not too many understand/appreciate what this optic is. Everyone wants to compare it to RDS and magnified optics, but the Prismatic is neither of those. Whether it's the right choice for you or not, I believe it offers more than its critics realize.
This entire subject seems more delicate because we are used to drawing the more distinct line between gamer and tactical guns in the handgun realm. Many of the gamer features on a pistol (large comp, large optic, extra long magazine, 1lb trigger, cradle style holster, etc.) make the gun impractical for CCL/LE/Military carry. So it's easy to see why gamer guns are a no-go for the tactically minded crowd.
When we get to rifles though... it's tougher IMHO to make that distinction. Whether you have a bone stock DD AR with a T-1 and A2 hider, or a JP rifle with carbon fiber, muzzle brake, and variable glass... you will still get the same level of attention from citizens, LE, etc. If you are in a place where you need/carry a rifle, then the distinction between what will work and what is "gamey" is very blurred. The weight difference in fact, will favor the gamer's rifle most of the time.
I think the better distinction is in a couple areas:
- Skill of the shooter. By that I mean, are you looking at one lonely rifle to be used by you, or some person who has the skill to handle the lightened trigger for example? Or is this a rifle that will be issued en masse to a group where you have to think about the lowest common denominator? On the flip side, is the shooter skilled enough to take advantage of a muzzle brake? Or will his scores during an evaluation be the same because he only shoots 100rds a year? If so, is it worth the extra cost to ditch an A2 hider? I would say it is not. This goes back to the regular theme here at M4C... start with the basics, and add on as you master them. If it's your first AR, putting a JP comp on the end of it will most likely result in me laughing at you. There are exceptions, but I'd laugh at a 16 year old who bought a McLaren for his first car when he has never driven. The building blocks approach works for most things in life IMHO.
- The "team effect." By that I mean, a 3 gunner is running around by himself (RO doesn't count) and blasting paper and steel. He need not concern himself with people to his side, rear, front. A tactical shooter is doing the same, but most often has to take his teammates into consideration. This means as an example, having a muzzle brake that is extra loud, blurps flames, breaks glass and plastic such as turn signals when too close, can have an overall negative effect on his partner/teammate. Look at the AAR from RB1's recent High Risk Vehicle Training in St. Augustine. The guys who were there talked about re-thinking their Battlecomps because after shooting them or being next to them in an enclosed car they realized there is a price to pay. Do you "need" that BC or other brake to shoot better? I would say not. If you practice enough, that A2 or Vortex hider isn't going to hinder you in the real world, and it may help avoid other issues. So basically, if the gamer gadgets work - great. But if they have a negative impact in a setting where you have to work with other shooters, or shoot in enclosed spaces... then I would submit they are not acceptable.
- Finally, I see the thing we often don't like to talk about... in a true tactical setting, there is someone else trying to kill you or your loved ones. If the muzzle flash of a 3-gunner is bright, those paper and steel targets aren't going to take advantage of it. For a truly tactical situation, that muzzle brake may draw unwanted attention to you and your position. Are the hybrids like the PWS 556 good enough to reduce flash? I don't know the answer. I do know Kyle Defoor told us in January that the reason they started using sound suppressors in the teams was because of muzzle flash elimination. Seems the hadjis were rather skilled at shooting at muzzle flashes when they saw them. Now truth be told, most of us probably over-emphasize our "need" for tactial anything. I love seeing a shooter in a class or at a competition wearing everything Crye sells - but he has no fundamentals at all. If only the instructors gave awards for "best dressed"... ;) That doesn't mean that all gamer products won't benefit in such a scenario. Looking at magazine capacity, it won't hurt my feelings to have extra rounds in the gun if people are trying to hurt me (so long as reliablity isn't affected). But if the mag is hindering movement in structure or vehicle... then I'd say it's a no-go.
Bottom line, I believe it all comes down to whether the gamer accessories cause the shooter to pay a price in some other area. A lightened handguard that is durable benefits everyone. Quality glass benefits both sides. As long as the items you choose work for you, go crazy. But sometimes we don't know there is a cost associated until we take a class or something bad happens.