pcw wrote:I know that no one here wants to hear it, but I think if you want to improve viewing, ditch the jackets and pants.
It might improve viewing, but it would put large numbers of competitors at a higher risk of serious injury.
pcw wrote:Personally, the costs of the clothes kept me from steering my kids into the sport. I think that most people can understand the money spent on a firearm, but the costs of the clothes keeps people out of the game.
As I've said elsewhere a couple of times, if the cost of the kit (rifle, jacket, whatever) is a problem then realistically you can't afford to compete at a high level. Flights, ammunition, accommodation and entry fees will burn through way more cash. Yes, the up front costs of kit are bigger but you can amortise them over a longer period. Depending on your circumstances you can often make do with hand-me-downs and borrowed kit for quite a while too, which reduces the need to spend it all at once.
My nearest retailer can sell you an off-the-peg suit for under $350 (Gehmann, jacket = £120, trousers = £110). You'd have burned through that in ammunition costs before the jacket was even properly broken in!
If your plan is to compete locally/domestically only then the calculus of the costs changes quite dramatically, I'll give you that. But the rules are made (and have to be made) for WC/WCH/OG level competitors where training loads mean that even
with jackets and trousers and boots many of the shooters are suffering from long term back injuries. Yes, we could change the rules to attempt to avoid that but realistically you're looking at starting from a blank sheet of paper to do that. And if you think the griping about cost is bad now, imagine what it would be like if
all the current kit was made illegal for being too stiff (clothing) or heavy (rifles)!