The New 3-Position Final Format and What It Means for 3x20

Starting in 2026, the final in Olympic 3-position rifle will undergo a major change. Instead of shooting in all three positions as before, the final will now be shot standing only. Most likely, this will follow the same format as air rifle: 24 shots, consisting of two 5-shot series followed by elimination single shots.

What Was the Format Before?

The previous final consisted of:

• 3×5-shot series kneeling (in 200 seconds)
• 7 minutes changeover and sighting time for prone
• 3×5-shot series prone (in 150 seconds)
• 9 minutes changeover and sighting time for standing
• 2×5-shot series standing (in 250 seconds)
• Then, places 8 and 7 were eliminated
• Followed by single shots (50 seconds each), with one athlete eliminated after each shot

Altogether, this was a fairly complex and time-intensive format with a clear structure, though not without weaknesses.

Why the Change?

The reason for this change is a requirement by the IOC (International Olympic Committee). Finals must not exceed 45 minutes in total. Even with a reduced 3x10 format and shorter changeover times, this was not achievable under the old structure.

Rather than endlessly tweaking and compromising, the decision was made: the final will be shot standing only going forward.

My Thoughts on This

I was never a big fan of the old format where two athletes were eliminated at once after the 5-shot series, and then only one shot separated the next eliminations. The pacing often felt rushed and lacked proper flow or drama.

So aligning the new format with the air rifle final actually makes sense to me. The air rifle final is well-designed, exciting, and easy for spectators to follow, even without prior knowledge of the sport.

”Standing shooters have an advantage”?

The most common criticism is: “This favors strong standing shooters.” Fair point. But let’s be honest. If you’re qualifying for a final with a score over 590, you’re already world-class in all three positions. Being good in just one of them won’t get you far.

Missed Opportunity: The Changeover Process

A seriously underrated part of the current format is the changeover process. It’s highly precise, strategic, and meticulously rehearsed, yet during broadcasts it is often covered by giveaways, casual commentary or ads.

Formula 1 does it better. Everyone watches the pit stop timer with full focus. In our sport, it becomes filler time.

With a little creativity, this could have been turned into a highlight. As it stands, it was a missed opportunity.

And yes, for me personally, the new format isn’t bad. Standing is my strongest position. But beyond that, I do think consistent and broadcast-friendly formats help the sport overall.

But Are We Losing Something in the Process?

Here’s something that keeps coming back to me. The other positions are disappearing from view. Kneeling, in particular visually striking and technically complex has always intrigued even those unfamiliar with shooting sports.

If only standing is shown in the final, the difference between 3-position and air rifle may no longer be clear to viewers. That could lead to the smallbore 3-position event being seen as redundant or even questioned entirely.

That’s why it’s so important that the qualification match is well presented. Through graphics, short clips, and explanations, viewers should get a sense of what makes this discipline unique.

Giving Long-Form Sports More Room

Another thought: does everything really need to be cut down to 45 minutes?

There are many sports that are fascinating precisely because they are long. Tour de France. Ironman. Formula 1. These are drawn-out events, yet they captivate audiences because the storytelling is done right.

So maybe the problem isn’t the length. Maybe the problem is how we tell the story.

Instead of shortening the final, we could also focus on making the qualification phase more visible and engaging. That’s where key decisions are made, rivalries emerge, and where kneeling and prone reveal their full technical depth.

What Does This Mean for the 3x20?

With no more gear changes in the final, we could see increased specialization in equipment and training. If athletes no longer need to keep quick changeovers in mind, they can customize their setups more precisely for each position.

And practically speaking, this saves money. No need to invest in special parts or quick-release systems for sight risers. Just saying.

But it also raises another question.

Why Not Go Back to 3x40?

When men’s and women’s events were aligned in 2018, women’s air rifle was increased to 60 shots, matching the men’s format. But for 3-position, it went the other way. Men’s 3x40 was reduced to 3x20.

A longer 3x40 format could create more differentiation and reduce tie scores in qualification.

For example, at the European Championships in Châteauroux, places 6 through 10 in the men’s 3x20 had a score of 591. In such cases, the next tiebreaker is the number of inner tens (X count). At that event, there wasn’t a tie in Xs — but what if there had been?

The rule is to compare the final series. If those are the same, they look at the second-to-last. And so on, until a difference is found.

But is that really fair? Honestly, what does the order of your tens say about your actual performance?

A longer format like 3x40 would at least reduce these kinds of situations.

Event organizers might not be thrilled, but I’m sure ammo manufacturers wouldn’t mind. 😉

Conclusion

The new format is a compromise. Whether it’s a good one remains to be seen.

What’s clear is that the focus is shifting — away from full 3-position finals and toward a more media-friendly standing-only showdown. I’m curious to see how this affects training, equipment, and how the sport is perceived.

And I hope that despite the cuts, we don’t lose sight of what makes our sport truly special.

Because the issue isn’t the length.

The issue is how we tell the story.