A Discussion on Space Gun issue in Service Rifle Matches

Gunnerlove said:
There is no real way to disadvantage the space gun shooter in any course of fire I can think of. The rifles issued to the Danes and Dutch are now the free floating C7IUR and I can think of no where that a normal C7 has an edge other than a few ounces while carrying it around.
Click to expand...

Not if you introduce dirt and water :D.
 
Yes it was a sailor in 09. The first sailor to ever win the QM. I was there to see it with my own eyes. No disrespect to him, it was a joke between Shortandlong and I. He and I shot with a sailor who was a bit of a whiney range queen. I think that QM winning sailor is on this board isn't he Naval Sniper? hehe... Oh ya shortandlong is a sailor as well.
 
My .02 cents worth.
I'm not a fan of the term "space gun", as it paints a picture that all of us see differently.
"Accurized AR" is the better term, and it is ARs that we are really taking about here. Many issued service rifles are accurized now, as mentioned in other posts. While these accurized service rifles may not have the full treatment, they have some aspects of accurizing involved.
The next generation of issued service rifles on the horizon will probably make all discussion of "space guns" moot, as the goal is to even have guided munitions as part of the package.
 
Civilians might have space guns but military guys get to use deadly high-capacity bullet clips that give them an advantage in the annihilation of innocent paper targets by giving them higher power of fire.


:ar15: :stirthepot2:
 
ton45-II said:
What you say is very true. Maybe Service Rifle matches should have divisions like IPSC and IDPA. We need a production (C7 or equivalent), an open (tweaked/space-gun), and a macho-man division (7.62s/M14s/AR10s).
Click to expand...
A macho-man division sounds like fun! ;) We are having seperate divisions out at the BCRA.There is no real reason why there shouldn't be divisions LIKE F-Class,target rifle and tactical rifle.There is a reason why F-Open shooters don't compete against F-TR shooters.

ton45-II said:
I think that adding a range a step further than 500 meters will complete the usefullness of SR as an operational shooting match.
Click to expand...

Totally agree!These guns ARE capable of holding man sized targets at 600m/y and the shooters can do so with just a little extra training.

ton45-II said:
The accomplishment in winning SR is quite gratifying to one's ego but there is where it ends. IF the interest of the whole is to benefit each and every soldier or operator, I believe that more changes on the match courses. It should really reflect the current realities and future permutations of battle.
IMHO, as soon as you're getting too comfortable with one way of shooting you are not evolving . We should have "space guns" run the course in an operational course of fire. Because it is only then will we truly see the benefits and disadvantages of technology and innovation to better our techniques and our equipment in battle. It is in these primordial pools of the shooting community that great progress with firearms have been created. This to me is the "pragmatic" payoff.

ton45
Click to expand...

I agree.HOWEVER the problem is that shooting complicated courses of fire and constantly changing them is fine once you have the basics, but to get to that stage you need to have a system of measure in place.That's why I beieve the DCRA is totally doing the right thing in keeping the same matches and giving people a place to hone the basics so that they can judge how their skills are evolving.If you are shooting 520's you still have some work to do to be truly proficient.
 
ton45-II said:
.....We should have "space guns" run the course in an operational course of fire.....ton45
Click to expand...

And why wouldn't/shouldn't a so-called "space gun" be used in an "operational" course of fire? Or "operationally"? In any rifle shooting isn't an accurate rifle an asset?
 
I want reliable, accurate guns. That being said, I don’t see the need for the ‘space’ guns anymore. I shoot mostly Multi-Gun and 3 Gun games with a stock XCR. It was an MOA gun right out of the box. I decided to join my provincial rifle association to get some trigger time at longer ranges (USPSA Nat. have LaRue’s!) so I had to get a ‘service’ rifle. I bought a STAG and it shoots sub MOA out of the box. What limits me from shooting all possibles is me & the dang wind, not the rifle. It is just a service rifle, no free float tube no special parts, (I did install a match trigger but don’t notice any difference in group sizes). I think all the top end .223/5.56 rifles are capable of this level of accuracy now out of the box. My new standard issue STAG will out shoot my old Mossberg small bore rifle at the 50m mound; now that is saying something about the modern AR’s.

I’d buy a ‘space gun’ if it had an advantage but I don’t see the need. 10 years ago, yes, nowadays, no. 10 years ago you couldn’t get a reliable .45 either without spending lots on custom stuff; that is far from the truth today. It has been my experience that modern guns are more capable the vast majority of the people using them.

Just my $.02
 
Which PRA won't allow an XCR for SR competition?
To buy two semi auto rifles and have both shoot sub-moa out of the boxes is remarkable!
 
Yes there are definately those out there that qualify more as a precision rifle than a service rifle.
If such rifles didn't have an advantage then I ask why folks bother using them at all?If a 20 inch barrel can be made
just as accurate and have better mobility than a longer gun then why don't people opt for the best version?
The answer is simple.When national championships are hanging in the threads people do opt for the best version.At such a high level
a 24 incher with a nice brake,some nice tuned match ammo and some decent glass is the best option.
 
The "spacegun" rifle scope will soon be a reality...

Raytheon ELCAN DInGO - Turning "First-Person Shooters" Into Soldiers
http://www.elcan.com/Our_Company/BulletinFiles/101109_Raytheon_ELCAN_DInGO.php

"Phase 1 of the DInGO contract will be executed at Raytheon’s ELCAN Optical Technologies facility in Richardson Texas. Towery said that DARPA estimates an initial production run of 50,000 units at a cost of $600 apiece, and Raytheon is hoping to begin production in 2013."
 
Beaver said:
The "spacegun" rifle scope will soon be a reality...

Raytheon ELCAN DInGO - Turning "First-Person Shooters" Into Soldiers
http://www.elcan.com/Our_Company/BulletinFiles/101109_Raytheon_ELCAN_DInGO.php

"Phase 1 of the DInGO contract will be executed at Raytheon’s ELCAN Optical Technologies facility in Richardson Texas. Towery said that DARPA estimates an initial production run of 50,000 units at a cost of $600 apiece, and Raytheon is hoping to begin production in 2013."
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I'm sure that the first production models will suck in some way and the product will collect a whole bunch of haters. Eventually though it will be developed, refined become pretty much standard.

I believe one of the hunting optic companies has a similar product. Maybe Burris?
 
Last edited:
These systems are already collecting haters and I am in their ranks.

The new French electronic rifle optic is a craptastic piece of kit. Anything that turns your weapon into a pumpkin every 4-8 hours when the big, heavy, battery dies is not field ready.

Keep in mind that is just the opinion of someone who has no interest in changing his rifle optics battery in the dark while on the move, and can already hit targets out to 500m with a non wonder scope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom