Just to play devil's advocate, suppose ISSF said the reason for the rule change was to reduce the costs of playing in order to encourage greater participation?
What would be your position then?
.48586.48579
Jacket and Pants Issue
Moderators: rexifelis, pilkguns
-
Jake
About half the cost
: 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?
So much of that can be made at home. The way we shoot (range design) in the US and some other countries, forces us to use multiple bull targets. Then it is necessary to have some extra equipment. European single bull systems are more expensive to setup initially but in the long run they may be less expensive for a club.
So $2200 is still a lot less than the $4000 or so that Len keeps talking about. WOW! Now he can have nearly twice as many shooters fully equipped.
It depends on the length of the match (one shot and I think you are on even terms)and if others are using jackets and pants they probably will have the advantage over 10 or more shots. That is my way of saying it depends.
.48588.48585
: Out of curiosity, how competitive can someone be just showing up with a decent air rifle?
So much of that can be made at home. The way we shoot (range design) in the US and some other countries, forces us to use multiple bull targets. Then it is necessary to have some extra equipment. European single bull systems are more expensive to setup initially but in the long run they may be less expensive for a club.
So $2200 is still a lot less than the $4000 or so that Len keeps talking about. WOW! Now he can have nearly twice as many shooters fully equipped.
It depends on the length of the match (one shot and I think you are on even terms)and if others are using jackets and pants they probably will have the advantage over 10 or more shots. That is my way of saying it depends.
.48588.48585
-
Larry Sawyer
Re: The Reason?
Well, off the top of my head, my response right now is that, that's a legitimate argument, it has some merit; it addresses a concrete issue that can be measured, and the goal is a positive one for the sport (increasing participation).
Rifleman-at-tcinternet.net.48589.48586
Rifleman-at-tcinternet.net.48589.48586
-
TomW
Re: The Reason?
I'd want the ISSF to discuss it with shooters first and to take careful note of their feedback, before coming to any decision.
But if we are going to play this game, let's go further and limit rifles to the cheaper break barrel types and no fancy accessories. A lot more people already have these rather than the full blown target models we currently use.
: Just to play devil's advocate, suppose ISSF said the reason for the rule change was to reduce the costs of playing in order to encourage greater participation?
: What would be your position then?
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48592.48586
But if we are going to play this game, let's go further and limit rifles to the cheaper break barrel types and no fancy accessories. A lot more people already have these rather than the full blown target models we currently use.
: Just to play devil's advocate, suppose ISSF said the reason for the rule change was to reduce the costs of playing in order to encourage greater participation?
: What would be your position then?
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48592.48586
-
Richard
Re: Here's the problem if they change the rules
Come on, clothing hasn't changed the sport and increased scores? Since they introduced the clothing they also have changed the target. Now there is no more room to change the target so something has got to give and I hate to tell you it will be the clothes. As for comparing shooting clothing to Spandex (Spandex is associated with athletics and large women at the supermarket). The rules said there is suppose to be no artifical support and now we argue that you can't take away the clothes because we need the support, do you see a problem with this arguement? If you want the ultimate in accuracy shoot benchrest. People hate change that is just human nature, the change will be made and we will go on. They did pick the most economical of all the proposals as well, they could have went with thinner which would have meant everyone would have to buy new equipment and there would be no market for used equipment.
.48593.48579
.48593.48579
-
Len
Profit
But in this case you can't.
We import firearms from other countries, we deal with many of these vendors all the time.
I KNOW what the margins are because I live in those margins.
Example; Mec trigger, my cost $63, MSRP $105
You are correct the dollar dropping has decreased margins for the now. Prior to EU parity and now a weak dollar, we were selling and buying at 20-30% on a daily basis.
Kurt Thune Jackets, cost $480ish, MSRP $725, Street cost about $650-$695.
Kurt Thune pants, cost about $270, MSRP $525 street about $450-$495.
Oddly the guns are the "lowest profit" items in many cases, after import...the margins are pretty slim, where margins are made on the guns is in service and trade in value or in the case of having inventory prior to a weak dollar.
.48599.48578
We import firearms from other countries, we deal with many of these vendors all the time.
I KNOW what the margins are because I live in those margins.
Example; Mec trigger, my cost $63, MSRP $105
You are correct the dollar dropping has decreased margins for the now. Prior to EU parity and now a weak dollar, we were selling and buying at 20-30% on a daily basis.
Kurt Thune Jackets, cost $480ish, MSRP $725, Street cost about $650-$695.
Kurt Thune pants, cost about $270, MSRP $525 street about $450-$495.
Oddly the guns are the "lowest profit" items in many cases, after import...the margins are pretty slim, where margins are made on the guns is in service and trade in value or in the case of having inventory prior to a weak dollar.
.48599.48578
-
Michael Ray
Re: 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?
I don't care about the money really. It would allow me to spend it on other things for my team, but I'm against the change. Pants do help me (I place my elbow on the top edge of my pants) and I know for a fact the 2 women on my team now wouldn't shoot if they couldn't use the pants so that's 2 less people in the sport if they were banned.
.48610.48559
I don't care about the money really. It would allow me to spend it on other things for my team, but I'm against the change. Pants do help me (I place my elbow on the top edge of my pants) and I know for a fact the 2 women on my team now wouldn't shoot if they couldn't use the pants so that's 2 less people in the sport if they were banned.
.48610.48559
-
Mark
Why won't they shoot w/o pants? nt
: : 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?
: I don't care about the money really. It would allow me to spend it on other things for my team, but I'm against the change. Pants do help me (I place my elbow on the top edge of my pants) and I know for a fact the 2 women on my team now wouldn't shoot if they couldn't use the pants so that's 2 less people in the sport if they were banned.
.48611.48610
: I don't care about the money really. It would allow me to spend it on other things for my team, but I'm against the change. Pants do help me (I place my elbow on the top edge of my pants) and I know for a fact the 2 women on my team now wouldn't shoot if they couldn't use the pants so that's 2 less people in the sport if they were banned.
.48611.48610
-
Jake
Oh...I see now!
I think I figured it out now.
You got the grant ($28,000) and you are going to line your own pockets with the money. Darn now why didn't I think of that?!
And it must be you who was charging the shooter the same high prices when the dollar was parity or better against the euro giving you 60-70% profit. Darn why didn't I think of that?!
Other dealers I know had their prices lower when the dollar was good and were forced to raise them. They sure seem stupid now, eh. You must just be the smartest businessman in the shooting world!
Actually, in your examples you are mixing euros and dollars in your pricing, you are forgetting about shipping, cost of ordering, payment transaction costs, returns/service, etc. This makes the profit margin go much lower than you want everyone to think. I don't want a Business 101 lesson here but you still didn't answer the question why you insist on ordering the expensive clothing for your proposed club...oh yeah, see paragraph one above. I think I got it now. I have to remember that!!!
Reputable dealers want to make a living, like our hosts, but if the screw people to make more than is reasonable, their business will dry up and we will all lose.
Maybe you aren't that good a businessman after all.
: But in this case you can't.
: We import firearms from other countries, we deal with many of these vendors all the time.
: I KNOW what the margins are because I live in those margins.
: Example; Mec trigger, my cost $63, MSRP $105
:
: You are correct the dollar dropping has decreased margins for the now. Prior to EU parity and now a weak dollar, we were selling and buying at 20-30% on a daily basis.
: Kurt Thune Jackets, cost $480ish, MSRP $725, Street cost about $650-$695.
: Kurt Thune pants, cost about $270, MSRP $525 street about $450-$495.
: Oddly the guns are the "lowest profit" items in many cases, after import...the margins are pretty slim, where margins are made on the guns is in service and trade in value or in the case of having inventory prior to a weak dollar.
.48612.48599
You got the grant ($28,000) and you are going to line your own pockets with the money. Darn now why didn't I think of that?!
And it must be you who was charging the shooter the same high prices when the dollar was parity or better against the euro giving you 60-70% profit. Darn why didn't I think of that?!
Other dealers I know had their prices lower when the dollar was good and were forced to raise them. They sure seem stupid now, eh. You must just be the smartest businessman in the shooting world!
Actually, in your examples you are mixing euros and dollars in your pricing, you are forgetting about shipping, cost of ordering, payment transaction costs, returns/service, etc. This makes the profit margin go much lower than you want everyone to think. I don't want a Business 101 lesson here but you still didn't answer the question why you insist on ordering the expensive clothing for your proposed club...oh yeah, see paragraph one above. I think I got it now. I have to remember that!!!
Reputable dealers want to make a living, like our hosts, but if the screw people to make more than is reasonable, their business will dry up and we will all lose.
Maybe you aren't that good a businessman after all.
: But in this case you can't.
: We import firearms from other countries, we deal with many of these vendors all the time.
: I KNOW what the margins are because I live in those margins.
: Example; Mec trigger, my cost $63, MSRP $105
:
: You are correct the dollar dropping has decreased margins for the now. Prior to EU parity and now a weak dollar, we were selling and buying at 20-30% on a daily basis.
: Kurt Thune Jackets, cost $480ish, MSRP $725, Street cost about $650-$695.
: Kurt Thune pants, cost about $270, MSRP $525 street about $450-$495.
: Oddly the guns are the "lowest profit" items in many cases, after import...the margins are pretty slim, where margins are made on the guns is in service and trade in value or in the case of having inventory prior to a weak dollar.
.48612.48599
-
Len
You really can't be that uninformed can you?
You asked how I know what the real prices are, saying that 30% wasn't a margin that was real. It is.
To answer your other "accusation" about lining my own pockets, absolutely not. I specifically buy from other dealers or importers who are kind enough to give good discounts for the firearms or wholesale prices. We add aboslutely NO fees for profit when ordering the guns from CMP or other dealers. Any of the normal transfer fees we would charge ($25 per gun) for running the 4473 are waived. It times up staff and recource but we do it for free, because it's good for the sport.
As for shipping, shipping is a pass through cost and in many instances, shipping is free if the order is large enough. If I buy from CMP it's gun and shipping cost is handled by the consumer.
If I buy from Jerry's or Davidsons, sometimes I get free shipping and so much better for the consumer.
Returns can be an issue but if they are club guns, we fix or repair them in house where allowed or able. Since the club owns the guns and we have a limited budget we make sure we leverage ANY resource we can to get work done free or at cost.
Again if you read my post above, we SPECIFICALLY are not fielding 10 shooters dressed out because it is too cost prohibitive. We are moving to the light rifle NRA matches because it allows for more participation, less cost, and a more even playing field with less equipment.
If I was interested in gouging a profit off of a team I would buy top of the line rifles (with a bare margin of profit) and certainly force them to buy the colthes that bring the margin up substantially. That would be good for "business" but in reality, I am doing what's good for the sport, getting kids that are interested on the line shooting.
.48625.48612
To answer your other "accusation" about lining my own pockets, absolutely not. I specifically buy from other dealers or importers who are kind enough to give good discounts for the firearms or wholesale prices. We add aboslutely NO fees for profit when ordering the guns from CMP or other dealers. Any of the normal transfer fees we would charge ($25 per gun) for running the 4473 are waived. It times up staff and recource but we do it for free, because it's good for the sport.
As for shipping, shipping is a pass through cost and in many instances, shipping is free if the order is large enough. If I buy from CMP it's gun and shipping cost is handled by the consumer.
If I buy from Jerry's or Davidsons, sometimes I get free shipping and so much better for the consumer.
Returns can be an issue but if they are club guns, we fix or repair them in house where allowed or able. Since the club owns the guns and we have a limited budget we make sure we leverage ANY resource we can to get work done free or at cost.
Again if you read my post above, we SPECIFICALLY are not fielding 10 shooters dressed out because it is too cost prohibitive. We are moving to the light rifle NRA matches because it allows for more participation, less cost, and a more even playing field with less equipment.
If I was interested in gouging a profit off of a team I would buy top of the line rifles (with a bare margin of profit) and certainly force them to buy the colthes that bring the margin up substantially. That would be good for "business" but in reality, I am doing what's good for the sport, getting kids that are interested on the line shooting.
.48625.48612
-
Len
but how many more would try out without the expensive equipm
So two that are shooting now would fall to the side, but how many people would fill their place if they didn't have to buy all the stuff just to stay in the game?
Moreso if the suits were not allowed, and it was found to be impossible to do it with the rifles of today...how would a clothes change impact the rifles that are fielded today?
.48626.48610
Moreso if the suits were not allowed, and it was found to be impossible to do it with the rifles of today...how would a clothes change impact the rifles that are fielded today?
.48626.48610
-
Len
Wrong again
It's very simple, when equipment is a deciding factor in a sport, the person with the best equipment, if all else is equal -wins.
So saying half the cost ( and again I' wasn't talking custom jackets, these are off the rack decent jackets) in equipment will keep you or get you winning is sort of silly. If the clothes are a limitation by not having them, having clothes that are not quite as good is still a limitation.
The only places where you see skill and equipment more normalized is where the direct interaction with gun is the game and even there it's still a bit of an equipment race. I would LOVE to see someone win top level matches with low budget equipment! Think how inspiring that would be!
When the equipment can boost points, past what skill can give you...buying points will always be buying points. It's unfortunate, and I would think for the good of the sport the more we can do to limit buying points the better.
.48628.48588
So saying half the cost ( and again I' wasn't talking custom jackets, these are off the rack decent jackets) in equipment will keep you or get you winning is sort of silly. If the clothes are a limitation by not having them, having clothes that are not quite as good is still a limitation.
The only places where you see skill and equipment more normalized is where the direct interaction with gun is the game and even there it's still a bit of an equipment race. I would LOVE to see someone win top level matches with low budget equipment! Think how inspiring that would be!
When the equipment can boost points, past what skill can give you...buying points will always be buying points. It's unfortunate, and I would think for the good of the sport the more we can do to limit buying points the better.
.48628.48588
-
Mike Schroeder
Re: The Reason?
But if we are going to play this game, let's go further and limit rifles to the cheaper break barrel types and no fancy accessories. A lot more people already have these rather than the full blown target models we currently use.
Just to play devil's advocate, suppose ISSF said the reason for the rule change was to reduce the costs of playing in order to encourage greater participation?
....
HI
I'm basing my answer on my LIMITED experience in 4-H, but the whole idea of greater participation through using cheap already owned guns is a pretty bad one.
We already teach using guns with aperture sights. Cheap .22's don'thave those, and there are none to buy that fit. Cheap (and expensive) high power air guns have the break barrel, but it's more powerful, and it still doesn't have aperture sights to fit. I guess I'm a little fixated on Aperture sights, but in iron sights what else would YOU teach with?????
Another example, Cabela's still sells 800 foot per second air rifles for under $250 roughly. That's too much power for the pellet traps we already have 25 of.
One of my fellow instructors took three guns to he 4-H Nationals in order to fully compete in smallbore rifle. The rules were changed "in order to make participation with cheaper rifles legal." May have been legal, but you WON'T win. Why compete if you have absolutely no chance?
If we're going to demand cheaper guns, and less equipement then the current equipment will be wasted and all new will be purchased, because the current plinker class just won't cut it.
Mike
Wichita KS
mschroeder5-at-cox.net.48633.48592
Just to play devil's advocate, suppose ISSF said the reason for the rule change was to reduce the costs of playing in order to encourage greater participation?
....
HI
I'm basing my answer on my LIMITED experience in 4-H, but the whole idea of greater participation through using cheap already owned guns is a pretty bad one.
We already teach using guns with aperture sights. Cheap .22's don'thave those, and there are none to buy that fit. Cheap (and expensive) high power air guns have the break barrel, but it's more powerful, and it still doesn't have aperture sights to fit. I guess I'm a little fixated on Aperture sights, but in iron sights what else would YOU teach with?????
Another example, Cabela's still sells 800 foot per second air rifles for under $250 roughly. That's too much power for the pellet traps we already have 25 of.
One of my fellow instructors took three guns to he 4-H Nationals in order to fully compete in smallbore rifle. The rules were changed "in order to make participation with cheaper rifles legal." May have been legal, but you WON'T win. Why compete if you have absolutely no chance?
If we're going to demand cheaper guns, and less equipement then the current equipment will be wasted and all new will be purchased, because the current plinker class just won't cut it.
Mike
Wichita KS
mschroeder5-at-cox.net.48633.48592
-
Jake
Who is this guy?
: You asked how I know what the real prices are, saying that 30% wasn't a margin that was real. It is.
: To answer your other "accusation" about lining my own pockets, absolutely not. I specifically buy from other dealers or importers who are kind enough to give good discounts for the firearms or wholesale prices. We add aboslutely NO fees for profit when ordering the guns from CMP or other dealers. Any of the normal transfer fees we would charge ($25 per gun) for running the 4473 are waived. It times up staff and recource but we do it for free, because it's good for the sport.
: As for shipping, shipping is a pass through cost and in many instances, shipping is free if the order is large enough. If I buy from CMP it's gun and shipping cost is handled by the consumer.
: If I buy from Jerry's or Davidsons, sometimes I get free shipping and so much better for the consumer.
: Returns can be an issue but if they are club guns, we fix or repair them in house where allowed or able. Since the club owns the guns and we have a limited budget we make sure we leverage ANY resource we can to get work done free or at cost.
:
: Again if you read my post above, we SPECIFICALLY are not fielding 10 shooters dressed out because it is too cost prohibitive. We are moving to the light rifle NRA matches because it allows for more participation, less cost, and a more even playing field with less equipment.
: If I was interested in gouging a profit off of a team I would buy top of the line rifles (with a bare margin of profit) and certainly force them to buy the colthes that bring the margin up substantially. That would be good for "business" but in reality, I am doing what's good for the sport, getting kids that are interested on the line shooting.
.48635.48625
: To answer your other "accusation" about lining my own pockets, absolutely not. I specifically buy from other dealers or importers who are kind enough to give good discounts for the firearms or wholesale prices. We add aboslutely NO fees for profit when ordering the guns from CMP or other dealers. Any of the normal transfer fees we would charge ($25 per gun) for running the 4473 are waived. It times up staff and recource but we do it for free, because it's good for the sport.
: As for shipping, shipping is a pass through cost and in many instances, shipping is free if the order is large enough. If I buy from CMP it's gun and shipping cost is handled by the consumer.
: If I buy from Jerry's or Davidsons, sometimes I get free shipping and so much better for the consumer.
: Returns can be an issue but if they are club guns, we fix or repair them in house where allowed or able. Since the club owns the guns and we have a limited budget we make sure we leverage ANY resource we can to get work done free or at cost.
:
: Again if you read my post above, we SPECIFICALLY are not fielding 10 shooters dressed out because it is too cost prohibitive. We are moving to the light rifle NRA matches because it allows for more participation, less cost, and a more even playing field with less equipment.
: If I was interested in gouging a profit off of a team I would buy top of the line rifles (with a bare margin of profit) and certainly force them to buy the colthes that bring the margin up substantially. That would be good for "business" but in reality, I am doing what's good for the sport, getting kids that are interested on the line shooting.
.48635.48625
-
TomW
Re: The Reason?
I made my comment re cheaper rifles with toungue firmly planted in cheek. It simply isn't going to happen.
There is enough of a stink going on now with the ISSF in relation to pants. They wanted to include jackets as well but European shooters apparently nearly rioted, although you can be certain that this issue will be visited again.
The ISSF will not ban existing air and smallbore rifles because too many businesses would go to the wall and the shooters using them would simply not accept it.
Fine if manufacturers can come up with cheaper rifles with the same features but that us the only realistic way of it happening.
: But if we are going to play this game, let's go further and limit rifles to the cheaper break barrel types and no fancy accessories. A lot more people already have these rather than the full blown target models we currently use.
: Just to play devil's advocate, suppose ISSF said the reason for the rule change was to reduce the costs of playing in order to encourage greater participation?
: ....
: HI
: I'm basing my answer on my LIMITED experience in 4-H, but the whole idea of greater participation through using cheap already owned guns is a pretty bad one.
: We already teach using guns with aperture sights. Cheap .22's don'thave those, and there are none to buy that fit. Cheap (and expensive) high power air guns have the break barrel, but it's more powerful, and it still doesn't have aperture sights to fit. I guess I'm a little fixated on Aperture sights, but in iron sights what else would YOU teach with?????
: Another example, Cabela's still sells 800 foot per second air rifles for under $250 roughly. That's too much power for the pellet traps we already have 25 of.
: One of my fellow instructors took three guns to he 4-H Nationals in order to fully compete in smallbore rifle. The rules were changed "in order to make participation with cheaper rifles legal." May have been legal, but you WON'T win. Why compete if you have absolutely no chance?
: If we're going to demand cheaper guns, and less equipement then the current equipment will be wasted and all new will be purchased, because the current plinker class just won't cut it.
: Mike
: Wichita KS
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48639.48633
There is enough of a stink going on now with the ISSF in relation to pants. They wanted to include jackets as well but European shooters apparently nearly rioted, although you can be certain that this issue will be visited again.
The ISSF will not ban existing air and smallbore rifles because too many businesses would go to the wall and the shooters using them would simply not accept it.
Fine if manufacturers can come up with cheaper rifles with the same features but that us the only realistic way of it happening.
: But if we are going to play this game, let's go further and limit rifles to the cheaper break barrel types and no fancy accessories. A lot more people already have these rather than the full blown target models we currently use.
: Just to play devil's advocate, suppose ISSF said the reason for the rule change was to reduce the costs of playing in order to encourage greater participation?
: ....
: HI
: I'm basing my answer on my LIMITED experience in 4-H, but the whole idea of greater participation through using cheap already owned guns is a pretty bad one.
: We already teach using guns with aperture sights. Cheap .22's don'thave those, and there are none to buy that fit. Cheap (and expensive) high power air guns have the break barrel, but it's more powerful, and it still doesn't have aperture sights to fit. I guess I'm a little fixated on Aperture sights, but in iron sights what else would YOU teach with?????
: Another example, Cabela's still sells 800 foot per second air rifles for under $250 roughly. That's too much power for the pellet traps we already have 25 of.
: One of my fellow instructors took three guns to he 4-H Nationals in order to fully compete in smallbore rifle. The rules were changed "in order to make participation with cheaper rifles legal." May have been legal, but you WON'T win. Why compete if you have absolutely no chance?
: If we're going to demand cheaper guns, and less equipement then the current equipment will be wasted and all new will be purchased, because the current plinker class just won't cut it.
: Mike
: Wichita KS
twoodle1-at-bigpond.net.au.48639.48633
-
Richard
Re: Wrong again
Check the equipment that the Cuban girl was using at the Pan Am games. If you gave it to anyone here they would probably have thrown it out. This is just a case of people not wanting to change, " this is the way we always have done it, why can't we keep doing that way". Everyone is going to whine and cry and threaten to leave the sport then after they chnage the rules and it becomes the new norm they will forget all about it, just like " if GWB gets elected I moving out of the US". That posting above from Jake can't be from Chet because you can actually understand it.
: It's very simple, when equipment is a deciding factor in a sport, the person with the best equipment, if all else is equal -wins.
: So saying half the cost ( and again I' wasn't talking custom jackets, these are off the rack decent jackets) in equipment will keep you or get you winning is sort of silly. If the clothes are a limitation by not having them, having clothes that are not quite as good is still a limitation.
: The only places where you see skill and equipment more normalized is where the direct interaction with gun is the game and even there it's still a bit of an equipment race. I would LOVE to see someone win top level matches with low budget equipment! Think how inspiring that would be!
: When the equipment can boost points, past what skill can give you...buying points will always be buying points. It's unfortunate, and I would think for the good of the sport the more we can do to limit buying points the better.
.48644.48628
: It's very simple, when equipment is a deciding factor in a sport, the person with the best equipment, if all else is equal -wins.
: So saying half the cost ( and again I' wasn't talking custom jackets, these are off the rack decent jackets) in equipment will keep you or get you winning is sort of silly. If the clothes are a limitation by not having them, having clothes that are not quite as good is still a limitation.
: The only places where you see skill and equipment more normalized is where the direct interaction with gun is the game and even there it's still a bit of an equipment race. I would LOVE to see someone win top level matches with low budget equipment! Think how inspiring that would be!
: When the equipment can boost points, past what skill can give you...buying points will always be buying points. It's unfortunate, and I would think for the good of the sport the more we can do to limit buying points the better.
.48644.48628
-
Michael Ray
Re: Why won't they shoot w/o pants? nt
They have a similar problem as me - short arms. Without having my pants on, I must hold my arm up to keep it in position because it won't reach my hipbone and will slide around to the side. Thus, I rest it on the top edge of my pants. Otherwise I would need to lean further back and I already lean back a lot. Same with them. It would be too painful w/o the pants so they just wouldn't shoot.
I have sometimes made the team practice without pants (or boots or loosened jacket) to feel the position more, but they just can't do it.
.48648.48611
I have sometimes made the team practice without pants (or boots or loosened jacket) to feel the position more, but they just can't do it.
.48648.48611
-
Michael Ray
Re: but how many more would try out without the expensive eq
: So two that are shooting now would fall to the side, but how many people would fill their place if they didn't have to buy all the stuff just to stay in the game?
Frankly, if someone could afford the $1500+ rifle and ammo to shoot, they can afford to spend $150 on pants. If they want to spend more on custom, that's fine. Anyone serious about being a serious competitor will do what it takes to get there just like any other sport.
Most of the juniors in my state don't have all the fancy gear or rifles. Those that do are using the generic brands like we do. You don't need to spend a lot to be competitive.
: Moreso if the suits were not allowed, and it was found to be impossible to do it with the rifles of today...how would a clothes change impact the rifles that are fielded today?
They would need to be lighter if you had no jacket and pants.
.48649.48626
Frankly, if someone could afford the $1500+ rifle and ammo to shoot, they can afford to spend $150 on pants. If they want to spend more on custom, that's fine. Anyone serious about being a serious competitor will do what it takes to get there just like any other sport.
Most of the juniors in my state don't have all the fancy gear or rifles. Those that do are using the generic brands like we do. You don't need to spend a lot to be competitive.
: Moreso if the suits were not allowed, and it was found to be impossible to do it with the rifles of today...how would a clothes change impact the rifles that are fielded today?
They would need to be lighter if you had no jacket and pants.
.48649.48626
-
j.edwards
Re: My uninformed knee-jerk reaction
The total number of good shooters and coaches that I know is four. One of them is going to the World Cup in Australia and one shoots for University of Nebraska. Obviously not a majority.
I think your latest post echoes my sentiments, at least in part. I don't want to give up this stuff that I've been training in. Again very self serving, but I'd bet that most shooters don't want to give up their equipment for a whole variety of reasons.
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.
qayakpak-at-comcast.net.48655.48553
I think your latest post echoes my sentiments, at least in part. I don't want to give up this stuff that I've been training in. Again very self serving, but I'd bet that most shooters don't want to give up their equipment for a whole variety of reasons.
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.
qayakpak-at-comcast.net.48655.48553