Ora cqb 2018
- Thread starter dink27
- Start date
Sherlock Gnomes
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- St.Catharines
If you don't have an ora membership you will need to get a statt to bring your restricted rifles to the range. You will need a special statt as CFB bases are not covered by your licence conditions in general. In terms of the clinics to be honest they help but don't be afraid to sign up and just come to a match. The more experienced shooters as well as relative newbs ( been shooting it 2 years myself) are always willing to lend a hand. We always pair up new shooters with experienced guys and the new guys get to see how the stage goes before they run it. We also do a practice run before scoring for moat of the matches. If you have any more questions ask away.
TacticalTeacher
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Georgian Bay, ON
The nice thing about an ORA Membership is that a member can apply for an ATT that is valid for all DND ranges in the province of Ontario....remember that your home club ATT is great for CFO Ontario approved ranges and DND ranges are federal jurisdiction... and that’s where your ST ATT or short term ATT allows you to bring or shoot restricted firearms to bases like Borden or Connaught or Garrison Petawawa or Kingston or any Base in Ontario.
Many of my CQB clinic clients up in Garrison Petawawa are members of the Base Petawawa Gun Club and they have their Long Term ATT issued to them via the gun club means.
So I hope this explains all about the ST or Short Term ATT that many are speaking about....
Cheers, Barney
Also, if you're an ORA member, you can apply for a LTATT for all DND ranges the ORA schedules matches and practices for. It will be valid until your RPAL expires or when you quit the ORA, whichever comes first. IIRC, if you need a STATT, contact the match director and he will apply for one for that particular match. ORA membership is $180/year and cost effective if you come out and play the service rifle matches or any additional matches the ORA organizes. There are also practice days where you can bring any firearm to practice.
You show up with a rifle, pistol and holster, sling.
We practice various drills in the morning and then shoot the full course of fire. On the road home by 2:00
Most fun you can have with your clothes on.
Based on the survey data it looks like
1 We continue to use the lewis system
2 Pistol optics need further review
3 Pistol caliber carbines are allowed to shoot for score against center fire rifles
4 Rifles will all shoot in a single class regardless of sights (consistent with question 1)
5 Rifles will all shoot in the same class regardless of caliber (consistent with question 1 and 4)
As it stands for question 2 Should pistol optics be allowed?
Yes, anyone can use pistol optics 36%
No 41%
Yes, but they must shoot in a separate class 22%
I am pleased with these feedback that was submitted. I hope all of the shooters are please with the results.
I will ponder the pistol optics question further. There are pros and cons. I would not like CQB to turn into an equipment race. I'm also aware that NSCC is provisioning for pistol optics, as are other shooting disciplines like IPSC and IDPA. There is no clear outcome in Question 2 since we will not be dividing the field into classes.
DINK
1 We continue to use the lewis system
2 Pistol optics need further review
3 Pistol caliber carbines are allowed to shoot for score against center fire rifles
4 Rifles will all shoot in a single class regardless of sights (consistent with question 1)
5 Rifles will all shoot in the same class regardless of caliber (consistent with question 1 and 4)
As it stands for question 2 Should pistol optics be allowed?
Yes, anyone can use pistol optics 36%
No 41%
Yes, but they must shoot in a separate class 22%
I am pleased with these feedback that was submitted. I hope all of the shooters are please with the results.
I will ponder the pistol optics question further. There are pros and cons. I would not like CQB to turn into an equipment race. I'm also aware that NSCC is provisioning for pistol optics, as are other shooting disciplines like IPSC and IDPA. There is no clear outcome in Question 2 since we will not be dividing the field into classes.
DINK
A question on the classes as they sit...
The group is typically divided into 3 groups based on the number of attendees. So technically that allows a low score in comparison to the better shooters to win a division that seems to be decided based on the best score of the losers. What’s the rational here?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to split the group into actual skill levels?
I don’t see the point in awarding a trophy to a shooter that is in fact a good shooter who had a bad day in a lower class. Also, by seeing the scores you must attain to be part of he higher classes could be good incentive to come to more matches and practice more.
It seems to me that we’re dangerously close to giving out participation medals here. I have no need for a trophy for not being good enough to have actually earned it.
The group is typically divided into 3 groups based on the number of attendees. So technically that allows a low score in comparison to the better shooters to win a division that seems to be decided based on the best score of the losers. What’s the rational here?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to split the group into actual skill levels?
I don’t see the point in awarding a trophy to a shooter that is in fact a good shooter who had a bad day in a lower class. Also, by seeing the scores you must attain to be part of he higher classes could be good incentive to come to more matches and practice more.
It seems to me that we’re dangerously close to giving out participation medals here. I have no need for a trophy for not being good enough to have actually earned it.
The current scoring/awards is Lewis style.
The field of competitors is ordered by score and divided into 3 equal (as close as we can) size groups. This system has been in place as long as I've been shooting CQB, long before I became involved in running the operation. This allows more people to receive awards as people who are not top shooters can still win based on where they are in the 3 groups.
Master class always has the top 3 shooters
Operator and Rookie Classes are more random as the number of shooters at each match play as much of a role as the actual scores.
If it were strictly up to me I'd divide you by equipment so you're competing against other people with similar equipment. Pistol caliber carbines, optics, etc. But there seems to be no apatite for that this year.
If we ever got to be a huge sport I'd also be willing to put up a classification shooter such that top shooters would be competing against one another and are not able to sandbag into a class. This is not a concern for me as we only have 100 or so people actively involve.
The field of competitors is ordered by score and divided into 3 equal (as close as we can) size groups. This system has been in place as long as I've been shooting CQB, long before I became involved in running the operation. This allows more people to receive awards as people who are not top shooters can still win based on where they are in the 3 groups.
Master class always has the top 3 shooters
Operator and Rookie Classes are more random as the number of shooters at each match play as much of a role as the actual scores.
If it were strictly up to me I'd divide you by equipment so you're competing against other people with similar equipment. Pistol caliber carbines, optics, etc. But there seems to be no apatite for that this year.
If we ever got to be a huge sport I'd also be willing to put up a classification shooter such that top shooters would be competing against one another and are not able to sandbag into a class. This is not a concern for me as we only have 100 or so people actively involve.
Point of clarification on 3: Are rimfires (Ruger 10/22, Marlin 795, S&W M&P 15-22, etc.) meant to be included, to be shot against centre fire rifles, i.e. 9mm, .45, .223/5.56? I'm OK with 9mm and .45 PCCs, but not with rimfires. Seems to me that all carbines/rifles should be centre fire.
Last edited:
The 2017 match info sheet did not specify center fire or not. I was more concerned about PCC vs rifle caliber. Rim-fire is a good point. Something else to ponder.
To me as this is a service conditions event, the firearms should be service appropriate. A rim-fire pistol or carbine are not, in my opinion, suitable for service type use. As far as I know no NATO police or military unit issues rim-fire firearms.
Perhaps we need to set a rule that center firearms must be shot for score? This would allow someone to use a 10/22 to try the sport out if that's all they have, but prevent an arms race to make accurate low recoil firearms choices.
On a similar note it mike be time to set a power factor requirement for ammunition. I suspect there are some hand loaders that might be using loads more appropriate for cowboay action then service use.
DINK
To me as this is a service conditions event, the firearms should be service appropriate. A rim-fire pistol or carbine are not, in my opinion, suitable for service type use. As far as I know no NATO police or military unit issues rim-fire firearms.
Perhaps we need to set a rule that center firearms must be shot for score? This would allow someone to use a 10/22 to try the sport out if that's all they have, but prevent an arms race to make accurate low recoil firearms choices.
On a similar note it mike be time to set a power factor requirement for ammunition. I suspect there are some hand loaders that might be using loads more appropriate for cowboay action then service use.
DINK
When the rounds start bouncing off of the backing board you'll know it's time to check their loads LOL
If you are going to require a power factor for handloads, how will that be enforced? A chronograph at the match? Bullet puller and scales?
A PCC has less recoil than a rifle caliber carbine. That is an advantage.
If someone wants to shoot rimfire, they could shoot for honours only.
Get enough rimfire competitors, you could have a rimfire division.
Probably best not to get too involved with rules and hair splitting. Don't go the IPSC route.
You want equipment to be reasonable, logical and practical for service use.
A PCC has less recoil than a rifle caliber carbine. That is an advantage.
If someone wants to shoot rimfire, they could shoot for honours only.
Get enough rimfire competitors, you could have a rimfire division.
Probably best not to get too involved with rules and hair splitting. Don't go the IPSC route.
You want equipment to be reasonable, logical and practical for service use.
Amen to that...it's a service conditions event. No rimfire, period. Aside from the match, and the point has already been made, nobody wants to be plucking 22lr out of the grass/mud/snow at the end of the day. Tough enough now to rouse enthusiasm for the brass sweep!
I've been shooting the CQB matches right from the get go. It has always been a rule that, yes you can fire rimfire carbines/pistols but you just do it for the fun. No scoring will be done and you're not eligible for prizes/standings. As for .22 shells, there will always be plenty to pick up from previous, non-CQB, matches.
As I said before. CQB is a test of shooting ability, speed shooting and fast mag switches. Equipment has less to do with results, except that some rifles reload faster than others.
As for the pistol optics, I find a red dot more accurate than irons - mostly because my old eyes don't see open sights very well. I don't complain that the kids have better eyes than I do.
The downside of the red dot is that when you hold it out at arm's length, it takes a bit to find the red dot in the glass, so the first shot is slower. When I used it I hoped to gain in accuracy what I lost in speed.
Would you consider allowing red dots only to the shooters over 55?
As for power factor. We could impose an IDPA Power Factor rule. The enforcement would be a competitor challenge. If you think my ammo is less than the PF, challenge me. If the Chrony proves you right, you claim my pistol. If you are wrong, I claim yours. Fair?
As for the pistol optics, I find a red dot more accurate than irons - mostly because my old eyes don't see open sights very well. I don't complain that the kids have better eyes than I do.
The downside of the red dot is that when you hold it out at arm's length, it takes a bit to find the red dot in the glass, so the first shot is slower. When I used it I hoped to gain in accuracy what I lost in speed.
Would you consider allowing red dots only to the shooters over 55?
As for power factor. We could impose an IDPA Power Factor rule. The enforcement would be a competitor challenge. If you think my ammo is less than the PF, challenge me. If the Chrony proves you right, you claim my pistol. If you are wrong, I claim yours. Fair?
I think the 22lr thing will be minor. We have to police what ever we find any way, its more that I want to continue to not score shooters using 22lr same as we've always done.
The problem that's come up is that the ORA is now asking for a written rule book and I want to make it as short and simple as possible, so all the "rules" we've had need to be formalized and written down.
Ganderite,
My concern with red dots is that it will be an equipment race. I concur with your assessment "for the pistol optics, I find a red dot more accurate than irons - mostly because my old eyes don't see open sights very well" my younger eyes are not the best and I find a red dot easier to use so if one of us is using a red dot we have an advantage, and if neither of us have, or both of us have red dots; we're back to youth vs experience. My goal is to keep the playing field level. This is why I was considering classes so anyone using red dots would shot against one another and iron sights would be against one another. Then is just a matter of skill/experience(age) not disparate equipment. Dividing the field into classes does not seem like a popular option.
With regards to power factor, I prefer we maintain a gentleman's agreement, and like Bugout says when the round bounce of the backer its time to check loads. However, for consistency I think we need to set a rule, then everyone has a known standard to work from. Enforcement could be a problem but I'm involved in other sports that check loads. Its a pain in the butt, but a rare pain, and no one every wants to be DQ'd for something that dumb.
For pistol I think a 125 power factor is probably a reasonable minimum, it is also common to many other shooting sports.
For rifle I think a 150 power factor again is a reasonable minimum, and common to other sports.
The problem that's come up is that the ORA is now asking for a written rule book and I want to make it as short and simple as possible, so all the "rules" we've had need to be formalized and written down.
Ganderite,
My concern with red dots is that it will be an equipment race. I concur with your assessment "for the pistol optics, I find a red dot more accurate than irons - mostly because my old eyes don't see open sights very well" my younger eyes are not the best and I find a red dot easier to use so if one of us is using a red dot we have an advantage, and if neither of us have, or both of us have red dots; we're back to youth vs experience. My goal is to keep the playing field level. This is why I was considering classes so anyone using red dots would shot against one another and iron sights would be against one another. Then is just a matter of skill/experience(age) not disparate equipment. Dividing the field into classes does not seem like a popular option.
With regards to power factor, I prefer we maintain a gentleman's agreement, and like Bugout says when the round bounce of the backer its time to check loads. However, for consistency I think we need to set a rule, then everyone has a known standard to work from. Enforcement could be a problem but I'm involved in other sports that check loads. Its a pain in the butt, but a rare pain, and no one every wants to be DQ'd for something that dumb.
For pistol I think a 125 power factor is probably a reasonable minimum, it is also common to many other shooting sports.
For rifle I think a 150 power factor again is a reasonable minimum, and common to other sports.
