Recently, Gary Anderson, Vice President of the ISSF, wrote an article for ISSF News Concerning the Clothing Rules for rifle shooters. While he made it sound like it was already decided, the issue has not been officially voted on.
A response has been written by "A" Licensed Coach Jaroslav Liptak. Jaro spent long nights working on this response while attending the ISSF Class "A" Coach Course. Marcus and I attended this course also and I personally provided my comments to Jaro. He also received opinions from the other rifle coaches attending the course and consolidated these comments in his superbly written response to the ISSF.
Please read both articles and other comments as they are made and write to the ISSF Executive Committee and Administrative Council and your national shooting Federation with your opinions and recommendations. The decision will be voted on at the meetings to be held in Athens at the World Cup and Olympic test event in April. Time is of the essence!
Check our website for more information and links.
Janet Raab
www.centershot.com
.48517.0
Jacket and Pants Issue
Moderators: rexifelis, pilkguns
-
Bob Riegl
Re: Jacket and Pants Issue
Though I have never been a coach at the International "A" level, I have coached on the NCAA (Collegiate) and High School level for better than 45 years---and I feel that this "clothing issue" is filled with an awful lot of sentiment ( good & bad) on both sides. I have witnessed many a smallbore match between collegiate teams with and without all of the "special jackets and trousers." I think psychologically I have seen teams, not so equipped, just shrug there shoulders and "hang it up." "No sense to competing against them, those pants and jackets give them a ten point advantage", was the cry---mebbe so. I would like to see the same matches shot without the use of those "non-supporting" trousers for a period of time--let's see if the scores change for the worse---I would be willing to bet they do. Back in the fifties and 60's we saw the Russians start shooting with those heavy leather jackets ( both Rifle and Pistol), that caused a minor revolution in shooting clothing al over the world---smallbore shooters using the US ARMY Surplus Ski Boots for the kneel and offhand---I did and these items were a distinct advantage to me---my kneeling and offhand scores went up 8-10 points in every match. I know there are many who have a commercial interest in this, and that is a compelling driving force against any changes in shooting "uniforms". This can be a major factor to those individuals whose liveliehood is derived from the use of these special jackets and pants.I can feel that this is going to develop into a major "brawl" within the shooting community. In my very humble opinion---it's about time we eliminated the use of this highly specialized form of shooting attire as it does constitute an artificial support.
.48524.48517
.48524.48517
-
Len
My uninformed knee-jerk reaction
Shoot naked
But seriously, what would be the harm in getting rid of the jackets and special pants in favor of casual clothes?
Would scores drop? Yeah for a while.
Would damage be done to the sport forever? No. Would more teams be able to compete evenly? Yes, instead of sinking $1200-2000 into a gun and about the $1800 into clothes, teams would only have to worry about the guns. Ditch the special underware, the boots, the golves, the jackets, pants, belts, visors, glasses...just buy more guns and more pellets...and field more people. I mean really do you think people buy the stuff because they like the looks of it? No it's because it gives them an advantage beyond that of the core need of a shooter and a rifle.
Heck most of the rifles today really push the edge of mecanical perfection...isn't that advantage enough?
I'm afraid those who have a vested interest in the money side of shooting are really pushing a cash cow to the forefront of the argement insted of thinking of what's best for shooters and the sport in general.
Look at air pistol...not too many extra clothes you can add there...has it hurt the sport? No it's made it more accesible to more shooters. Show up with a $500 gun, and some skill...you are just about on equal ground as the top shooters in the world...no fancy dress required.
.48529.48517
But seriously, what would be the harm in getting rid of the jackets and special pants in favor of casual clothes?
Would scores drop? Yeah for a while.
Would damage be done to the sport forever? No. Would more teams be able to compete evenly? Yes, instead of sinking $1200-2000 into a gun and about the $1800 into clothes, teams would only have to worry about the guns. Ditch the special underware, the boots, the golves, the jackets, pants, belts, visors, glasses...just buy more guns and more pellets...and field more people. I mean really do you think people buy the stuff because they like the looks of it? No it's because it gives them an advantage beyond that of the core need of a shooter and a rifle.
Heck most of the rifles today really push the edge of mecanical perfection...isn't that advantage enough?
I'm afraid those who have a vested interest in the money side of shooting are really pushing a cash cow to the forefront of the argement insted of thinking of what's best for shooters and the sport in general.
Look at air pistol...not too many extra clothes you can add there...has it hurt the sport? No it's made it more accesible to more shooters. Show up with a $500 gun, and some skill...you are just about on equal ground as the top shooters in the world...no fancy dress required.
.48529.48517
-
TomW
Re: My uninformed knee-jerk reaction
In one way I tend to agree with what you say. I'd be all in favour of it if the ISSF refunded to me and every other affected shooter, the money which we have spent on this gear - and it is considerable.
However, the ISSF can't just sit back and every couple of years decide on something new that upsets them and to hell with the impact that it has on the shooters and their wallets.
If one is to carry your logic through to its ultimate conclusion, then we really should go back to using matchlocks and no sights.
My own feeling is that since we have these things, let's go the whole hog and make them genuinely useful by providing full support. Then we can get rid of the convoluted rules governing jackets and pants.
In fact all of the rules could do with a major rewrite with the aim of simplifying things. The vast majority of shooters are not world class and never will be.
Let's have rules that fit OUR needs and not those of the elite few (and I'm not blaming them either). If you keep pissing people off with changes like this all the time, you will lose shooters and without the solid infrastructure that ordiinary shooters bring to the sport, there will be no Olympic champions and maybe no sport either.
: Shoot naked
: But seriously, what would be the harm in getting rid of the jackets and special pants in favor of casual clothes?
: Would scores drop? Yeah for a while.
: Would damage be done to the sport forever? No. Would more teams be able to compete evenly? Yes, instead of sinking $1200-2000 into a gun and about the $1800 into clothes, teams would only have to worry about the guns. Ditch the special underware, the boots, the golves, the jackets, pants, belts, visors, glasses...just buy more guns and more pellets...and field more people. I mean really do you think people buy the stuff because they like the looks of it? No it's because it gives them an advantage beyond that of the core need of a shooter and a rifle.
: Heck most of the rifles today really push the edge of mecanical perfection...isn't that advantage enough?
: I'm afraid those who have a vested interest in the money side of shooting are really pushing a cash cow to the forefront of the argement insted of thinking of what's best for shooters and the sport in general.
: Look at air pistol...not too many extra clothes you can add there...has it hurt the sport? No it's made it more accesible to more shooters. Show up with a $500 gun, and some skill...you are just about on equal ground as the top shooters in the world...no fancy dress required.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48536.48529
However, the ISSF can't just sit back and every couple of years decide on something new that upsets them and to hell with the impact that it has on the shooters and their wallets.
If one is to carry your logic through to its ultimate conclusion, then we really should go back to using matchlocks and no sights.
My own feeling is that since we have these things, let's go the whole hog and make them genuinely useful by providing full support. Then we can get rid of the convoluted rules governing jackets and pants.
In fact all of the rules could do with a major rewrite with the aim of simplifying things. The vast majority of shooters are not world class and never will be.
Let's have rules that fit OUR needs and not those of the elite few (and I'm not blaming them either). If you keep pissing people off with changes like this all the time, you will lose shooters and without the solid infrastructure that ordiinary shooters bring to the sport, there will be no Olympic champions and maybe no sport either.
: Shoot naked
: But seriously, what would be the harm in getting rid of the jackets and special pants in favor of casual clothes?
: Would scores drop? Yeah for a while.
: Would damage be done to the sport forever? No. Would more teams be able to compete evenly? Yes, instead of sinking $1200-2000 into a gun and about the $1800 into clothes, teams would only have to worry about the guns. Ditch the special underware, the boots, the golves, the jackets, pants, belts, visors, glasses...just buy more guns and more pellets...and field more people. I mean really do you think people buy the stuff because they like the looks of it? No it's because it gives them an advantage beyond that of the core need of a shooter and a rifle.
: Heck most of the rifles today really push the edge of mecanical perfection...isn't that advantage enough?
: I'm afraid those who have a vested interest in the money side of shooting are really pushing a cash cow to the forefront of the argement insted of thinking of what's best for shooters and the sport in general.
: Look at air pistol...not too many extra clothes you can add there...has it hurt the sport? No it's made it more accesible to more shooters. Show up with a $500 gun, and some skill...you are just about on equal ground as the top shooters in the world...no fancy dress required.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48536.48529
-
Mac
Re: My uninformed knee-jerk reaction
Well, instead of an uninformed knee-jerk reaction, what about listening to some informed reaction, such as the medical advisors to the German Shooting Federation who do believe that the trousers are required. How about listening to Rajmond Debevec, the Olympic 3x40 Champion and World Record Holder...
: In one way I tend to agree with what you say. I'd be all in favour of it if the ISSF refunded to me and every other affected shooter, the money which we have spent on this gear - and it is considerable.
: However, the ISSF can't just sit back and every couple of years decide on something new that upsets them and to hell with the impact that it has on the shooters and their wallets.
: If one is to carry your logic through to its ultimate conclusion, then we really should go back to using matchlocks and no sights.
: My own feeling is that since we have these things, let's go the whole hog and make them genuinely useful by providing full support. Then we can get rid of the convoluted rules governing jackets and pants.
: In fact all of the rules could do with a major rewrite with the aim of simplifying things. The vast majority of shooters are not world class and never will be.
: Let's have rules that fit OUR needs and not those of the elite few (and I'm not blaming them either). If you keep pissing people off with changes like this all the time, you will lose shooters and without the solid infrastructure that ordiinary shooters bring to the sport, there will be no Olympic champions and maybe no sport either.
: : Shoot naked
: : But seriously, what would be the harm in getting rid of the jackets and special pants in favor of casual clothes?
: : Would scores drop? Yeah for a while.
: : Would damage be done to the sport forever? No. Would more teams be able to compete evenly? Yes, instead of sinking $1200-2000 into a gun and about the $1800 into clothes, teams would only have to worry about the guns. Ditch the special underware, the boots, the golves, the jackets, pants, belts, visors, glasses...just buy more guns and more pellets...and field more people. I mean really do you think people buy the stuff because they like the looks of it? No it's because it gives them an advantage beyond that of the core need of a shooter and a rifle.
: : Heck most of the rifles today really push the edge of mecanical perfection...isn't that advantage enough?
: : I'm afraid those who have a vested interest in the money side of shooting are really pushing a cash cow to the forefront of the argement insted of thinking of what's best for shooters and the sport in general.
: : Look at air pistol...not too many extra clothes you can add there...has it hurt the sport? No it's made it more accesible to more shooters. Show up with a $500 gun, and some skill...you are just about on equal ground as the top shooters in the world...no fancy dress required.
.48537.48536
: In one way I tend to agree with what you say. I'd be all in favour of it if the ISSF refunded to me and every other affected shooter, the money which we have spent on this gear - and it is considerable.
: However, the ISSF can't just sit back and every couple of years decide on something new that upsets them and to hell with the impact that it has on the shooters and their wallets.
: If one is to carry your logic through to its ultimate conclusion, then we really should go back to using matchlocks and no sights.
: My own feeling is that since we have these things, let's go the whole hog and make them genuinely useful by providing full support. Then we can get rid of the convoluted rules governing jackets and pants.
: In fact all of the rules could do with a major rewrite with the aim of simplifying things. The vast majority of shooters are not world class and never will be.
: Let's have rules that fit OUR needs and not those of the elite few (and I'm not blaming them either). If you keep pissing people off with changes like this all the time, you will lose shooters and without the solid infrastructure that ordiinary shooters bring to the sport, there will be no Olympic champions and maybe no sport either.
: : Shoot naked
: : But seriously, what would be the harm in getting rid of the jackets and special pants in favor of casual clothes?
: : Would scores drop? Yeah for a while.
: : Would damage be done to the sport forever? No. Would more teams be able to compete evenly? Yes, instead of sinking $1200-2000 into a gun and about the $1800 into clothes, teams would only have to worry about the guns. Ditch the special underware, the boots, the golves, the jackets, pants, belts, visors, glasses...just buy more guns and more pellets...and field more people. I mean really do you think people buy the stuff because they like the looks of it? No it's because it gives them an advantage beyond that of the core need of a shooter and a rifle.
: : Heck most of the rifles today really push the edge of mecanical perfection...isn't that advantage enough?
: : I'm afraid those who have a vested interest in the money side of shooting are really pushing a cash cow to the forefront of the argement insted of thinking of what's best for shooters and the sport in general.
: : Look at air pistol...not too many extra clothes you can add there...has it hurt the sport? No it's made it more accesible to more shooters. Show up with a $500 gun, and some skill...you are just about on equal ground as the top shooters in the world...no fancy dress required.
.48537.48536
-
j.edwards
Re: My uninformed knee-jerk reaction
I've been shooting smallbore 3P and air rifle for only the last year and I'm 55 years old.
Here's my knee jeck reaction:
I bought my jacket and pants from Janet and I like them. I don't want to be told that I can't ware them under the auspices of helping the sport. There's enough debate about this and enough negative feed back from the coaches and shooters themselves to conclude that the decision is only for the good of the sport in some people's minds and they are not the majority.
In all honesty my additude is purely self serving, but is representative of all the good shooters and coaches that I know.
We spent good money for this stuff and we want to use it, dammit!
: Shoot naked
: But seriously, what would be the harm in getting rid of the jackets and special pants in favor of casual clothes?
: Would scores drop? Yeah for a while.
: Would damage be done to the sport forever? No. Would more teams be able to compete evenly? Yes, instead of sinking $1200-2000 into a gun and about the $1800 into clothes, teams would only have to worry about the guns. Ditch the special underware, the boots, the golves, the jackets, pants, belts, visors, glasses...just buy more guns and more pellets...and field more people. I mean really do you think people buy the stuff because they like the looks of it? No it's because it gives them an advantage beyond that of the core need of a shooter and a rifle.
: Heck most of the rifles today really push the edge of mecanical perfection...isn't that advantage enough?
: I'm afraid those who have a vested interest in the money side of shooting are really pushing a cash cow to the forefront of the argement insted of thinking of what's best for shooters and the sport in general.
: Look at air pistol...not too many extra clothes you can add there...has it hurt the sport? No it's made it more accesible to more shooters. Show up with a $500 gun, and some skill...you are just about on equal ground as the top shooters in the world...no fancy dress required.
qayakpak-at-comcast.net.48552.48529
Here's my knee jeck reaction:
I bought my jacket and pants from Janet and I like them. I don't want to be told that I can't ware them under the auspices of helping the sport. There's enough debate about this and enough negative feed back from the coaches and shooters themselves to conclude that the decision is only for the good of the sport in some people's minds and they are not the majority.
In all honesty my additude is purely self serving, but is representative of all the good shooters and coaches that I know.
We spent good money for this stuff and we want to use it, dammit!
: Shoot naked
: But seriously, what would be the harm in getting rid of the jackets and special pants in favor of casual clothes?
: Would scores drop? Yeah for a while.
: Would damage be done to the sport forever? No. Would more teams be able to compete evenly? Yes, instead of sinking $1200-2000 into a gun and about the $1800 into clothes, teams would only have to worry about the guns. Ditch the special underware, the boots, the golves, the jackets, pants, belts, visors, glasses...just buy more guns and more pellets...and field more people. I mean really do you think people buy the stuff because they like the looks of it? No it's because it gives them an advantage beyond that of the core need of a shooter and a rifle.
: Heck most of the rifles today really push the edge of mecanical perfection...isn't that advantage enough?
: I'm afraid those who have a vested interest in the money side of shooting are really pushing a cash cow to the forefront of the argement insted of thinking of what's best for shooters and the sport in general.
: Look at air pistol...not too many extra clothes you can add there...has it hurt the sport? No it's made it more accesible to more shooters. Show up with a $500 gun, and some skill...you are just about on equal ground as the top shooters in the world...no fancy dress required.
qayakpak-at-comcast.net.48552.48529
-
Len
Re: My uninformed knee-jerk reaction
It's interesting that you say all the good shooters and coaches you know as this debate has been going on for a while and not all the good coaches and shooters agree with keeping the equipment.
Relying on the straw man arguement that "the clothes are needed, to support the shooters, in postions that would do damage to them without the clothes, to get scores they can't get without the clothes." really is a not particularly compelling.
It's the ends justifying the means with an interesting bent on profit over personal performance.
The coaches and shooters that have a vested interest in breaking records that would be otherwise unacheiveable without the clothes in question, certainly should and would side with keeping them.
Maybe the answer lies in creating two classes of shooters, assisted and unassited. Defining what would constitue assited and unassited would make for an interesting discussion but might just boil down to those wearing "shooting jackets, pants, shooes, golves, and undergarments" and those wearing "street clothes".
Then the shooters could take the choice as to which class they want to shoot in.
It's already happened in a much more orphaned sport of Field Target, the folks wearing their "price rigs" for support now shoot in a different class because the advantage in this new sport was easy to see almost overnight.
B and C level shooters, end up at an A line becuse of the use of a rig almost overnight.
I would assert that the change would be just as dramatic in the opposite direction if all shooters took off their special clothes and shot in street clothes for a day. The scores would drop, then come back up a bit but never quite make it to the level they were before.
.48553.48552
Relying on the straw man arguement that "the clothes are needed, to support the shooters, in postions that would do damage to them without the clothes, to get scores they can't get without the clothes." really is a not particularly compelling.
It's the ends justifying the means with an interesting bent on profit over personal performance.
The coaches and shooters that have a vested interest in breaking records that would be otherwise unacheiveable without the clothes in question, certainly should and would side with keeping them.
Maybe the answer lies in creating two classes of shooters, assisted and unassited. Defining what would constitue assited and unassited would make for an interesting discussion but might just boil down to those wearing "shooting jackets, pants, shooes, golves, and undergarments" and those wearing "street clothes".
Then the shooters could take the choice as to which class they want to shoot in.
It's already happened in a much more orphaned sport of Field Target, the folks wearing their "price rigs" for support now shoot in a different class because the advantage in this new sport was easy to see almost overnight.
B and C level shooters, end up at an A line becuse of the use of a rig almost overnight.
I would assert that the change would be just as dramatic in the opposite direction if all shooters took off their special clothes and shot in street clothes for a day. The scores would drop, then come back up a bit but never quite make it to the level they were before.
.48553.48552
-
Larry Sawyer
You're missing the point
This isssue is being debated so hotly because ISSF has given no rationale for getting rid of shooting pants. Let's face a few realities:
1. Target rifles are heavy.
2. For decades, rifle shooters have worn a special jacket of some sort to aid in comfort (support) AND THEREFORE performance.
3. Shooting pants were developed to help the shooter achieve additional comfort and performance in the use of heavy rifles-- just like jackets!
4. Therefore, there is NO good reason to eliminate shooting pants-- unless your goal is to universally eliminate every piece of clothing that aids in comfort and performance. AND-- ISSF has made no such statement, so clearly, their motives lie elsewhere.
Shooting pants have evolved into an integral part of the shooters' equipment set. Speed skaters wear Spandex suits, which help them skate faster and makes them look funny. Would you force them to wear street clothes on the same rationale that's being applied to shooters-- it makes them look funny or walk funny, and lost performance be damned?
Of course not! To argue that the resulting lower scores would only be temporary misses the point entirely. You can't just change the game for the sake of change without a good reason-- and they (ISSF) have yet to voice one.
It's immaterial to claim that we could adapt to shooting without special pants--no one has told us why we should have to.
Rifleman-at-tcinternet.net.48554.48529
1. Target rifles are heavy.
2. For decades, rifle shooters have worn a special jacket of some sort to aid in comfort (support) AND THEREFORE performance.
3. Shooting pants were developed to help the shooter achieve additional comfort and performance in the use of heavy rifles-- just like jackets!
4. Therefore, there is NO good reason to eliminate shooting pants-- unless your goal is to universally eliminate every piece of clothing that aids in comfort and performance. AND-- ISSF has made no such statement, so clearly, their motives lie elsewhere.
Shooting pants have evolved into an integral part of the shooters' equipment set. Speed skaters wear Spandex suits, which help them skate faster and makes them look funny. Would you force them to wear street clothes on the same rationale that's being applied to shooters-- it makes them look funny or walk funny, and lost performance be damned?
Of course not! To argue that the resulting lower scores would only be temporary misses the point entirely. You can't just change the game for the sake of change without a good reason-- and they (ISSF) have yet to voice one.
It's immaterial to claim that we could adapt to shooting without special pants--no one has told us why we should have to.
Rifleman-at-tcinternet.net.48554.48529
-
TomW
Re: My uninformed knee-jerk reaction
That's all very well, but it misses the real issue entirely. Shooters, for years, have abided by the rules which permitted them to have shooting jackets, trousers and boots. These cost thousands of dollars.
Now the ISSF, without any consultation with shooters at large, are saying "We don't like these anymore and they are to be banned" and there goes your money down the drain with no compensation.
It's trousers this time, what's the betting it's jackets and boots next time?
You may find this all very reasonable but I don't and I'm willing to bet that a lot of shooters feel as I do.
: It's interesting that you say all the good shooters and coaches you know as this debate has been going on for a while and not all the good coaches and shooters agree with keeping the equipment.
: Relying on the straw man arguement that "the clothes are needed, to support the shooters, in postions that would do damage to them without the clothes, to get scores they can't get without the clothes." really is a not particularly compelling.
: It's the ends justifying the means with an interesting bent on profit over personal performance.
: The coaches and shooters that have a vested interest in breaking records that would be otherwise unacheiveable without the clothes in question, certainly should and would side with keeping them.
: Maybe the answer lies in creating two classes of shooters, assisted and unassited. Defining what would constitue assited and unassited would make for an interesting discussion but might just boil down to those wearing "shooting jackets, pants, shooes, golves, and undergarments" and those wearing "street clothes".
: Then the shooters could take the choice as to which class they want to shoot in.
: It's already happened in a much more orphaned sport of Field Target, the folks wearing their "price rigs" for support now shoot in a different class because the advantage in this new sport was easy to see almost overnight.
: B and C level shooters, end up at an A line becuse of the use of a rig almost overnight.
: I would assert that the change would be just as dramatic in the opposite direction if all shooters took off their special clothes and shot in street clothes for a day. The scores would drop, then come back up a bit but never quite make it to the level they were before.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48557.48553
Now the ISSF, without any consultation with shooters at large, are saying "We don't like these anymore and they are to be banned" and there goes your money down the drain with no compensation.
It's trousers this time, what's the betting it's jackets and boots next time?
You may find this all very reasonable but I don't and I'm willing to bet that a lot of shooters feel as I do.
: It's interesting that you say all the good shooters and coaches you know as this debate has been going on for a while and not all the good coaches and shooters agree with keeping the equipment.
: Relying on the straw man arguement that "the clothes are needed, to support the shooters, in postions that would do damage to them without the clothes, to get scores they can't get without the clothes." really is a not particularly compelling.
: It's the ends justifying the means with an interesting bent on profit over personal performance.
: The coaches and shooters that have a vested interest in breaking records that would be otherwise unacheiveable without the clothes in question, certainly should and would side with keeping them.
: Maybe the answer lies in creating two classes of shooters, assisted and unassited. Defining what would constitue assited and unassited would make for an interesting discussion but might just boil down to those wearing "shooting jackets, pants, shooes, golves, and undergarments" and those wearing "street clothes".
: Then the shooters could take the choice as to which class they want to shoot in.
: It's already happened in a much more orphaned sport of Field Target, the folks wearing their "price rigs" for support now shoot in a different class because the advantage in this new sport was easy to see almost overnight.
: B and C level shooters, end up at an A line becuse of the use of a rig almost overnight.
: I would assert that the change would be just as dramatic in the opposite direction if all shooters took off their special clothes and shot in street clothes for a day. The scores would drop, then come back up a bit but never quite make it to the level they were before.
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48557.48553
-
Mark
Is it best for the sport or is it about money?
Just curious, for those responding, is it really about what's best for the sport, or is it about money? At least one person has already said that were it not for the money he has already spent on clothing, he wouldn't care if the rules were changed. How many others feel that it would okay to change the rules if ISSF refunded the cost of clothing?
From my perspective, I'm primarily a pistol shooter. I did some air rifle in high school and would be interested in it, but for the prohibitive cost. Decent air rifles are more expensive than decent air pistols, and all of the extra gear required to be competitive make it insanely expensive unless you're with a college team that's picking up the tab. So, I'll stick to the pistol stuff.
: Recently, Gary Anderson, Vice President of the ISSF, wrote an article for ISSF News Concerning the Clothing Rules for rifle shooters. While he made it sound like it was already decided, the issue has not been officially voted on.
: A response has been written by "A" Licensed Coach Jaroslav Liptak. Jaro spent long nights working on this response while attending the ISSF Class "A" Coach Course. Marcus and I attended this course also and I personally provided my comments to Jaro. He also received opinions from the other rifle coaches attending the course and consolidated these comments in his superbly written response to the ISSF.
: Please read both articles and other comments as they are made and write to the ISSF Executive Committee and Administrative Council and your national shooting Federation with your opinions and recommendations. The decision will be voted on at the meetings to be held in Athens at the World Cup and Olympic test event in April. Time is of the essence!
: Check our website for more information and links.
: Janet Raab
: www.centershot.com
.48559.48517
From my perspective, I'm primarily a pistol shooter. I did some air rifle in high school and would be interested in it, but for the prohibitive cost. Decent air rifles are more expensive than decent air pistols, and all of the extra gear required to be competitive make it insanely expensive unless you're with a college team that's picking up the tab. So, I'll stick to the pistol stuff.
: Recently, Gary Anderson, Vice President of the ISSF, wrote an article for ISSF News Concerning the Clothing Rules for rifle shooters. While he made it sound like it was already decided, the issue has not been officially voted on.
: A response has been written by "A" Licensed Coach Jaroslav Liptak. Jaro spent long nights working on this response while attending the ISSF Class "A" Coach Course. Marcus and I attended this course also and I personally provided my comments to Jaro. He also received opinions from the other rifle coaches attending the course and consolidated these comments in his superbly written response to the ISSF.
: Please read both articles and other comments as they are made and write to the ISSF Executive Committee and Administrative Council and your national shooting Federation with your opinions and recommendations. The decision will be voted on at the meetings to be held in Athens at the World Cup and Olympic test event in April. Time is of the essence!
: Check our website for more information and links.
: Janet Raab
: www.centershot.com
.48559.48517
-
TomW
Re: Is it best for the sport or is it about money?
I'm sorry, and I can only speak for myself, but yes, the money is important. I won't even go into other issues such as whether the proposed bans are good for the sport or not but I for one am not happy about the ISSF unilaterally deciding that the money I have spent on gear permitted under the rules can now just be thrown away.
It isn't just the trousers. It has been mooted before that jackets and boots should go as well and you can be certain if this ban gets through then they will be the next to go. More money down the drain. It's fine for those who haven't spent anything on such stuff but it isn't fine for those that have.
Many shooters have had to make sacrifices to gather the money for such gear and by what right do people like you and the ISSF say "Oh well, that's just tough" ? Affected shooters should have a say in matters like this and we aren't being given one. You can be absolutely certain of one thing and that is that the ISSF will certainly NOT refund any money to affected shooters.
: Just curious, for those responding, is it really about what's best for the sport, or is it about money? At least one person has already said that were it not for the money he has already spent on clothing, he wouldn't care if the rules were changed. How many others feel that it would okay to change the rules if ISSF refunded the cost of clothing?
: From my perspective, I'm primarily a pistol shooter. I did some air rifle in high school and would be interested in it, but for the prohibitive cost. Decent air rifles are more expensive than decent air pistols, and all of the extra gear required to be competitive make it insanely expensive unless you're with a college team that's picking up the tab. So, I'll stick to the pistol stuff.
: : Recently, Gary Anderson, Vice President of the ISSF, wrote an article for ISSF News Concerning the Clothing Rules for rifle shooters. While he made it sound like it was already decided, the issue has not been officially voted on.
: : A response has been written by "A" Licensed Coach Jaroslav Liptak. Jaro spent long nights working on this response while attending the ISSF Class "A" Coach Course. Marcus and I attended this course also and I personally provided my comments to Jaro. He also received opinions from the other rifle coaches attending the course and consolidated these comments in his superbly written response to the ISSF.
: : Please read both articles and other comments as they are made and write to the ISSF Executive Committee and Administrative Council and your national shooting Federation with your opinions and recommendations. The decision will be voted on at the meetings to be held in Athens at the World Cup and Olympic test event in April. Time is of the essence!
: : Check our website for more information and links.
: : Janet Raab
: : www.centershot.com
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48560.48559
It isn't just the trousers. It has been mooted before that jackets and boots should go as well and you can be certain if this ban gets through then they will be the next to go. More money down the drain. It's fine for those who haven't spent anything on such stuff but it isn't fine for those that have.
Many shooters have had to make sacrifices to gather the money for such gear and by what right do people like you and the ISSF say "Oh well, that's just tough" ? Affected shooters should have a say in matters like this and we aren't being given one. You can be absolutely certain of one thing and that is that the ISSF will certainly NOT refund any money to affected shooters.
: Just curious, for those responding, is it really about what's best for the sport, or is it about money? At least one person has already said that were it not for the money he has already spent on clothing, he wouldn't care if the rules were changed. How many others feel that it would okay to change the rules if ISSF refunded the cost of clothing?
: From my perspective, I'm primarily a pistol shooter. I did some air rifle in high school and would be interested in it, but for the prohibitive cost. Decent air rifles are more expensive than decent air pistols, and all of the extra gear required to be competitive make it insanely expensive unless you're with a college team that's picking up the tab. So, I'll stick to the pistol stuff.
: : Recently, Gary Anderson, Vice President of the ISSF, wrote an article for ISSF News Concerning the Clothing Rules for rifle shooters. While he made it sound like it was already decided, the issue has not been officially voted on.
: : A response has been written by "A" Licensed Coach Jaroslav Liptak. Jaro spent long nights working on this response while attending the ISSF Class "A" Coach Course. Marcus and I attended this course also and I personally provided my comments to Jaro. He also received opinions from the other rifle coaches attending the course and consolidated these comments in his superbly written response to the ISSF.
: : Please read both articles and other comments as they are made and write to the ISSF Executive Committee and Administrative Council and your national shooting Federation with your opinions and recommendations. The decision will be voted on at the meetings to be held in Athens at the World Cup and Olympic test event in April. Time is of the essence!
: : Check our website for more information and links.
: : Janet Raab
: : www.centershot.com
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48560.48559
-
Len
Re: My uninformed knee-jerk reaction
I agree there needs to be a discussion about it, but the compelling interest isn't how much money has been spent on the items. I would argue that the best defense would be we spent 1000 of hours training in this get up, how do you expect us to just toss it to the side. Hours not money is more compelling to me.
.48563.48557
.48563.48557
-
Len
Your buying the circular logic reasoning
which is EXACTLY what's wrong with the arguement.
We will give you heavy guns to achieve a near impossible end.
The guns will be so heavy that you can only shoot them with special clothing.
If you use the clothing you will be able to achieve this near impossible end.
If you don't use the clothing, it proves how impossible the end is.
This is one of the reasons NRA light rifle is bscoming so popular, it's not impossible with all this extra equipment but it's still VERY hard.
The expectation is obvously too high for the normal or eve super normal human to do with out assistance. So where is the line between performance and equipment? What's the next logical progression? Give everyone 80 pound rifles, and put them in body braces with metal articulated arms and legs? Roll them out on a dolly and prop them up on the firing line? I mean why not? he scores might go up, right.
.48565.48554
We will give you heavy guns to achieve a near impossible end.
The guns will be so heavy that you can only shoot them with special clothing.
If you use the clothing you will be able to achieve this near impossible end.
If you don't use the clothing, it proves how impossible the end is.
This is one of the reasons NRA light rifle is bscoming so popular, it's not impossible with all this extra equipment but it's still VERY hard.
The expectation is obvously too high for the normal or eve super normal human to do with out assistance. So where is the line between performance and equipment? What's the next logical progression? Give everyone 80 pound rifles, and put them in body braces with metal articulated arms and legs? Roll them out on a dolly and prop them up on the firing line? I mean why not? he scores might go up, right.
.48565.48554
-
Larry Sawyer
Reality makes more sense
In truth, here's the evolution that got us to where we are today:
We will let you use heavy rifles because they will help you achieve your goal of accuracy.
We will let you use a jacket because specialized equipment is found in other sports, and the jacket will also help you achieve your goal of accuracy:
If you use the clothing, which is allowed by the rules, you will compete on equal footing with the other shooters who are doing everything they can within the rules to achieve the best performance.
if you don't use the clothing, you may or may not shoot well, but you will very likely put yourself at a disadvantage.
Performance and equipment are inextricably linked, as they are in all sports. Look at bobsled technology; look at clapper skates, where the blade is hinged. Our clothing has evolved, but that hasn't given us remarkably higher scores. If it had, ISSF could argue that the clothing was altering the game. But they're not! They're not even claiming that!
ISSF is saying, let's change this. For no reason.
EXACTLY what's wrong with the arguement.
: We will give you heavy guns to achieve a near impossible end.
: The guns will be so heavy that you can only shoot them with special clothing.
: If you use the clothing you will be able to achieve this near impossible end.
: If you don't use the clothing, it proves how impossible the end is.
: This is one of the reasons NRA light rifle is bscoming so popular, it's not impossible with all this extra equipment but it's still VERY hard.
: The expectation is obvously too high for the normal or eve super normal human to do with out assistance. So where is the line between performance and equipment? What's the next logical progression? Give everyone 80 pound rifles, and put them in body braces with metal articulated arms and legs? Roll them out on a dolly and prop them up on the firing line? I mean why not? he scores might go up, right.
Rifleman-at-tcinternet.net.48570.48565
We will let you use heavy rifles because they will help you achieve your goal of accuracy.
We will let you use a jacket because specialized equipment is found in other sports, and the jacket will also help you achieve your goal of accuracy:
If you use the clothing, which is allowed by the rules, you will compete on equal footing with the other shooters who are doing everything they can within the rules to achieve the best performance.
if you don't use the clothing, you may or may not shoot well, but you will very likely put yourself at a disadvantage.
Performance and equipment are inextricably linked, as they are in all sports. Look at bobsled technology; look at clapper skates, where the blade is hinged. Our clothing has evolved, but that hasn't given us remarkably higher scores. If it had, ISSF could argue that the clothing was altering the game. But they're not! They're not even claiming that!
ISSF is saying, let's change this. For no reason.
EXACTLY what's wrong with the arguement.
: We will give you heavy guns to achieve a near impossible end.
: The guns will be so heavy that you can only shoot them with special clothing.
: If you use the clothing you will be able to achieve this near impossible end.
: If you don't use the clothing, it proves how impossible the end is.
: This is one of the reasons NRA light rifle is bscoming so popular, it's not impossible with all this extra equipment but it's still VERY hard.
: The expectation is obvously too high for the normal or eve super normal human to do with out assistance. So where is the line between performance and equipment? What's the next logical progression? Give everyone 80 pound rifles, and put them in body braces with metal articulated arms and legs? Roll them out on a dolly and prop them up on the firing line? I mean why not? he scores might go up, right.
Rifleman-at-tcinternet.net.48570.48565
-
Len
So what's the problem if they change the rules?
Everyone will still be on equal footing, and it will reflect more of the shooters ability than the boost in performance that the equipment gives them.
You really should only need four things to be a shooter, a rifle, a body, some ammo and a range with targets. That is the "spirit of shooting".
The clothing should not make the shooter, which is the arguement and you agree the clothes are making the shooter. So taken to your conclusion, why not give the shooter as many advantages as psosible via this artifical rest of clothing and support, load them up with rifles that are heavier than a person can carry, give them a suit with some form of exoskeleton to support said rifle and that's the ultimate in accuracy, right?
The real point is shooting is not about the ultimate in accuracy, shooting is about the ultimate in personal skill, something that has been sidelined by the race for scores at any equipment cost.
As to turning back the rifles, the rifle is core to shooting (no rifle no shooting) so yeah if you want to turn back the technology and force lighter rifles becuase of the lack of the artifical rests needed for the heavy rifles...I'm all for it. As to triggers and power plants, sure that would be fine to as long as everyone had the same restraints...but again the gun being core to the shooting sports, I don't quiet see the problem in having advanced rifles so long as you can heft and shoot them sans artificial support.
.48572.48570
You really should only need four things to be a shooter, a rifle, a body, some ammo and a range with targets. That is the "spirit of shooting".
The clothing should not make the shooter, which is the arguement and you agree the clothes are making the shooter. So taken to your conclusion, why not give the shooter as many advantages as psosible via this artifical rest of clothing and support, load them up with rifles that are heavier than a person can carry, give them a suit with some form of exoskeleton to support said rifle and that's the ultimate in accuracy, right?
The real point is shooting is not about the ultimate in accuracy, shooting is about the ultimate in personal skill, something that has been sidelined by the race for scores at any equipment cost.
As to turning back the rifles, the rifle is core to shooting (no rifle no shooting) so yeah if you want to turn back the technology and force lighter rifles becuase of the lack of the artifical rests needed for the heavy rifles...I'm all for it. As to triggers and power plants, sure that would be fine to as long as everyone had the same restraints...but again the gun being core to the shooting sports, I don't quiet see the problem in having advanced rifles so long as you can heft and shoot them sans artificial support.
.48572.48570
-
Len
The Benjamins
We got a grant recently for about $28,000 to start a youth shooting program. Now $28K isn't something to sneeze at but it's not a lot of money when talking airgun or smallbore match shooting.
Even with dealer pricing via our own importing or purchasing through friendly dealer reps in the US most small bore shooting and airgun shooting is really out of the question.
I can buy good rifles from the CMP, I can buy excelent rifles via the "free market" but the cost of the jackets, pants, gloves, boots, underware, headgear, belts...ends up adding about $1800 per shooter. As this is a youth league those shooters are going to grow, we are trying to get as many shooters to the program as possible for a 10 station range with 5 coaches, so what happens when a shooter comes in that we don't have the clothes for? Should I turn them away? Should I load them up with a rifle that's too heavy for them to shoot and snap their spines?
So I have the option of fielding a core of 8 shooters with $1200 guns, and $1800 in other gear $3k per shooter, or I can go a slightly different route and field more shooters with no special clothes, and $400-800 rifles. Which is better for the kids and the shooting sports in general?
Which is better for the coaches who want to say they have a shooter in the Olympics?
Which is better for the vendor making 30% on equipment. Which is better for "ultimate accurac"?
Heck the choice is simple for me, get as many kids shooting as possible, having fun and not damaging their bodies or pyche by immediately being "out slassed" by guys with the same rifles but the extra $1800 in clothes it takes to be "competative".
.48574.48559
Even with dealer pricing via our own importing or purchasing through friendly dealer reps in the US most small bore shooting and airgun shooting is really out of the question.
I can buy good rifles from the CMP, I can buy excelent rifles via the "free market" but the cost of the jackets, pants, gloves, boots, underware, headgear, belts...ends up adding about $1800 per shooter. As this is a youth league those shooters are going to grow, we are trying to get as many shooters to the program as possible for a 10 station range with 5 coaches, so what happens when a shooter comes in that we don't have the clothes for? Should I turn them away? Should I load them up with a rifle that's too heavy for them to shoot and snap their spines?
So I have the option of fielding a core of 8 shooters with $1200 guns, and $1800 in other gear $3k per shooter, or I can go a slightly different route and field more shooters with no special clothes, and $400-800 rifles. Which is better for the kids and the shooting sports in general?
Which is better for the coaches who want to say they have a shooter in the Olympics?
Which is better for the vendor making 30% on equipment. Which is better for "ultimate accurac"?
Heck the choice is simple for me, get as many kids shooting as possible, having fun and not damaging their bodies or pyche by immediately being "out slassed" by guys with the same rifles but the extra $1800 in clothes it takes to be "competative".
.48574.48559
-
Mike Schroeder
Re: Jacket and Pants Issue
Hi
I'm pretty new at this and have a lot of problems with the whole mess. We have 3 12-16 year old shooters who need to consider what they need to practice in order to qualify for Scholarships. The local NRA coach trainer has stated that they need to shoot precision and smallbore (international, not NRA rules) to qualify for Scholarships. Currently, these use a buttoned jacket, pants, and shoes. When the specifications of these items change, it reduces the time, money, and experience of our younger shooters.
Personally, I don't much care what the ISSF chooses to do. I can and will switch disciplines based on the local matches, my money, my time, and the guns I currently own. This is a hobby for me, but for those I'm coaching and instructing I have to be able explain what they need to purchase, why, how to use it etc.
Doing away with the rule for pants isn't the answer, everyone wears pants when they shoot, well everyone I've seen at the range did. Not special pants, but pants. You can buy spandex lifting suits that compress everything, but look like a bodysuit. You can buy sweats, or really tight jeans that are high rise. What I'm trying to say is that you still have to write a specification for pants.
To me an advantage of the pants and jacket, is the padding. High power kind of hurts, as does kneeling on a concrete floor.
I would really like to see the ISSF make their mind up and soon.
Mike
Wichita KS
mschroeder5-at-cox.net.48576.48524
I'm pretty new at this and have a lot of problems with the whole mess. We have 3 12-16 year old shooters who need to consider what they need to practice in order to qualify for Scholarships. The local NRA coach trainer has stated that they need to shoot precision and smallbore (international, not NRA rules) to qualify for Scholarships. Currently, these use a buttoned jacket, pants, and shoes. When the specifications of these items change, it reduces the time, money, and experience of our younger shooters.
Personally, I don't much care what the ISSF chooses to do. I can and will switch disciplines based on the local matches, my money, my time, and the guns I currently own. This is a hobby for me, but for those I'm coaching and instructing I have to be able explain what they need to purchase, why, how to use it etc.
Doing away with the rule for pants isn't the answer, everyone wears pants when they shoot, well everyone I've seen at the range did. Not special pants, but pants. You can buy spandex lifting suits that compress everything, but look like a bodysuit. You can buy sweats, or really tight jeans that are high rise. What I'm trying to say is that you still have to write a specification for pants.
To me an advantage of the pants and jacket, is the padding. High power kind of hurts, as does kneeling on a concrete floor.
I would really like to see the ISSF make their mind up and soon.
Mike
Wichita KS
mschroeder5-at-cox.net.48576.48524
-
Jake
Re: The Benjamins??
:Which is better for the vendor making 30% on equipment.
PLEASE 30%!?? What planet do you live on? Unless you are buying the stuff from Pakistan the actual profit margin is so much less! Especially with the severe decline of the dollar vs the euro. But I suppose that according to you that is the vendors fault too and they should eat the difference and just give you the stuff for free.
And $1800?? BS! Beginners do not need custom made jacket and pants. A perfectly acceptable set is less than $500 and boots about $175, gloves $50. As far as special underwear, that can be as simple as a sweat shirt and sweat pants that they probably already own. That is less than $750!
Can you spend more, sure! Is it better, maybe. It might fit better, be more comfortable but that can be purchased later as they develop in the sport.
Why are you buying all of their personal equipment anyway?
.48578.48574
PLEASE 30%!?? What planet do you live on? Unless you are buying the stuff from Pakistan the actual profit margin is so much less! Especially with the severe decline of the dollar vs the euro. But I suppose that according to you that is the vendors fault too and they should eat the difference and just give you the stuff for free.
And $1800?? BS! Beginners do not need custom made jacket and pants. A perfectly acceptable set is less than $500 and boots about $175, gloves $50. As far as special underwear, that can be as simple as a sweat shirt and sweat pants that they probably already own. That is less than $750!
Can you spend more, sure! Is it better, maybe. It might fit better, be more comfortable but that can be purchased later as they develop in the sport.
Why are you buying all of their personal equipment anyway?
.48578.48574
-
Larry Sawyer
Here's the problem if they change the rules
Len, you read things between the lines that weren't there. I said, "Our clothing has evolved, but that hasn't given us remarkably higher scores."
I do NOT believe that the clothing has made a significant difference, I believe it has made a small, incremental difference in the scores, as has the gun technology, electronic targets, and every other nuance that occurs over time. The clothing is now part of the "fabric" of the game, pardon my pun. It is a part of the game that is on equal footing with the other aspects of the game.
Again, ISSF wants to change this part-- which changes the entire chemical equation-- but they can't say why.
One cannot side with an arguement that has no justification or basis.
Would you let your town council declare that everyone must now drive on the left side of the road without TRULY justifying such a change? Sure, you could adapt, but why on earth would you want to go through that if it wasn't necessary?
Rifleman-at-tcinternet.net.48579.48572
I do NOT believe that the clothing has made a significant difference, I believe it has made a small, incremental difference in the scores, as has the gun technology, electronic targets, and every other nuance that occurs over time. The clothing is now part of the "fabric" of the game, pardon my pun. It is a part of the game that is on equal footing with the other aspects of the game.
Again, ISSF wants to change this part-- which changes the entire chemical equation-- but they can't say why.
One cannot side with an arguement that has no justification or basis.
Would you let your town council declare that everyone must now drive on the left side of the road without TRULY justifying such a change? Sure, you could adapt, but why on earth would you want to go through that if it wasn't necessary?
Rifleman-at-tcinternet.net.48579.48572
-
Mark
Re: The Benjamins??
Okay, $725, plus a $1175 for a decent air rifle for a total of $1900. Plus, most rifle shooters will want a spotting scope and stand ($150?) and stand to rest their rifle on ($25?), and a case for the gun ($100). This puts the cost of playing at close to $2200 to get started. That's a pretty big commitment considering there's probably only one match a month I can shoot at in my area. This is especially true when the market for ISSF shooting gear isn't very big, so resale of used equipment can be tough.
Out of curiosity, how competitive can someone be just showing up with a decent air rifle?
: :Which is better for the vendor making 30% on equipment.
: PLEASE 30%!?? What planet do you live on? Unless you are buying the stuff from Pakistan the actual profit margin is so much less! Especially with the severe decline of the dollar vs the euro. But I suppose that according to you that is the vendors fault too and they should eat the difference and just give you the stuff for free.
: And $1800?? BS! Beginners do not need custom made jacket and pants. A perfectly acceptable set is less than $500 and boots about $175, gloves $50. As far as special underwear, that can be as simple as a sweat shirt and sweat pants that they probably already own. That is less than $750!
: Can you spend more, sure! Is it better, maybe. It might fit better, be more comfortable but that can be purchased later as they develop in the sport.
: Why are you buying all of their personal equipment anyway?
.48585.48578
Out of curiosity, how competitive can someone be just showing up with a decent air rifle?
: :Which is better for the vendor making 30% on equipment.
: PLEASE 30%!?? What planet do you live on? Unless you are buying the stuff from Pakistan the actual profit margin is so much less! Especially with the severe decline of the dollar vs the euro. But I suppose that according to you that is the vendors fault too and they should eat the difference and just give you the stuff for free.
: And $1800?? BS! Beginners do not need custom made jacket and pants. A perfectly acceptable set is less than $500 and boots about $175, gloves $50. As far as special underwear, that can be as simple as a sweat shirt and sweat pants that they probably already own. That is less than $750!
: Can you spend more, sure! Is it better, maybe. It might fit better, be more comfortable but that can be purchased later as they develop in the sport.
: Why are you buying all of their personal equipment anyway?
.48585.48578