TargetTalk

Mike M. wrote:+1 to better posting and to outreach programs. I travel 120 days per year, and frankly, I've shot more BE in California than in my home state of Maryland.

And it's a bear to find matches.

Now, with regard to electronic targets....

I've shot on them in Germany. And it is an outstanding idea, if it can be afforded. No walking down to score, no waiting for statistics. The targets were all hooked up to a central computer, and the instant the relay was over, ALL scores were immediately updated. Don't knock them until you've tried them.

I am not knocking them at all. I have shot on them, and I also have shot quite a bit in Germany. But my experience as a business advisor, and contracting officer taught me that all environments are not the same, and some types of systems dont scale up well.
I actually think that electronic targets would benefit me at Perry because of my age, and my less than olympic conditioning. But I am not going to let that fact blind me to the realities of buying and installing a complex system, that needs to be totally portable, and also damn near fool proof.

Companies offering bids to get a really big contract, try and make things look as attractive, and as affordable as possible, then when the actual installation arrives, the contract gets modified ten times, and the costs double because of all the minor things you need to do to make it work, that were not included in the original spec.
They already know that no permenent covered firing points, and permenent covered firing line, can be installed at Perry. It is government property.

They also know that the conditions at Perry that we shoot in, would be enough to get an outdoor match cancelled and rescheduled in Europe if they had to shoot under the same conditions.
I just worry that the large banks of electronic targets, and scoring electronics will not survive constant set up, tear down and operation under poor weather conditions unless they are upgraded to a far more weather hardened system than those currently in use.
I also worry that the professional techs required to keep the system up and running will cost far more than the volunteers now working at Perry.

Until all these costs are realistically evaluated, AND the numbers add up, I think the chances of a private organization, like the NRA signing up for it, are slim indeed.

Freepistol wrote:

GunRunner wrote:Conventional pistol is a sport thats many decades old, to change it to accommodate the few that cant make time to do what is necessary to compete is ridiculous. I dont compete in NASCAR because i cant afford the cost of a race car, should they make a rule change and let me race my pickup? . . . . . . . .

There is a pickup division in NASCAR.

not for stock inexpensive ones like mine which is what the op wanted, to change a 2700 to all 22 to save on ammo cost. FYI, a nascar race pickup is well over 200K. Not in my budget !

The expense of time and funds requirement to compete is intimidating enough in the "sport" of shooting. But the times have changed, and also has the gun industry. The industry has converted emphasis to recreational, tactical, and tacticool. The gun publications and TV, including the NRA, have gone right along with that.

First off, Jerry thanks for the reminder from Al, may he be shooting bullseye with all the others that have passed on.

(I've tried taking a more reasonable approach to conversations such as this in the past. But what the heck, lets try something different!)

Secondly, and most importantly, WAAAAAAAH! WAAAAAAAH! Something is too expensive, takes too much time, its hard to do, takes dedication, can't be purchased off the shelf, someone else does it better because they have something different or something I don't, I can't do that because, .... whatever!

Please get over it. People will shoot bulleye if they want to shoot bulleye. Only a small portion of the shooting population can look at themselves (and the target) and deal with the fact they can't shoot for squat, whatever.

As I stated in my response to Denny on the Bullseye list, and will repeat here. I like bullseye because it's hard, its ment to be hard, and that's what makes it a sport.

If you have issues with expenses for bullseye compared with other shooting sports, then you have not done a fair comparison. You can get started in bullseye with a .22. You can't do that with IPSC or Cowboy. If you want to go full out on a bullseye gun, it will run you about 1/2 the price of a full open gun of comparable quality. And how about the 2 pistols, shotgun and rifle and ammo needed for Cowboy?

If money is a issue, please shoot the .22 until you make high master scores. By then, you will either decide to go to the Olympic side or be so in love with bullseye the money will not matter, you will make it happen.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but Im so tired of people saying what needs to be changed to get more people shooting bullseye.

Simply get off your butt and set up, help set up, promote and run a damn match. Consistently and with much enthusiasm! People will come and look, kick the tires just like any car lot. And the ones that feel the spark, the challenge, the desire to see exactly how good they are and take up the challenge to try and get better, WILL COME BACK! Those that don't, well, sometimes people just want to do other things that are easier. And I kinda feel sorry for them, but not enough to change the game.

Just kinda shouting in the wind....

Cecil Rhodes
"Bulleye Shooter"

PS. Jerry: Again, thanks for the reminder of where Al stood on the subject. "Bullseye may be a game to some, but I am very serious about this.." You always knew where he stood, on pretty much any subject!

I don't shoot BE, but I have always wondered about the business of using a .45 for the 'centerfire' portion. Doesn't this do away with the original spirit of the sport? An "amateur" weapon, a "police" weapon, and a "military" gun? Today, the distinctions don't work out the way they used to, but still... why bother calling the middle 900 'centerfire' when it's mostly people using their .45's twice? Why do shooters do it this way? Couldn't one argue that the sport originally called for three calibers, and most BE shooters are using a loophole to avoid:

1. Cost
2. Mastering a separate weapon?

If so, I don't think that accusing the OP of whining about cost is a valid criticism. Maybe his question is, in fact, worth pondering.

Ricardo wrote:I don't shoot BE, but I have always wondered about the business of using a .45 for the 'centerfire' portion. Doesn't this do away with the original spirit of the sport? An "amateur" weapon, a "police" weapon, and a "military" gun? Today, the distinctions don't work out the way they used to, but still... why bother calling the middle 900 'centerfire' when it's mostly people using their .45's twice? Why do shooters do it this way? Couldn't one argue that the sport originally called for three calibers, and most BE shooters are using a loophole to avoid:

1. Cost
2. Mastering a separate weapon?

If so, I don't think that accusing the OP of whining about cost is a valid criticism. Maybe his question is, in fact, worth pondering.

Like any other sport, the objective has always been to "win" within the rules, and not follow the spirit of the competition,and go down in flames for the sake of tradition.
The original intent of the sport was a three stage match, 22 for the recreational target shooter, 38 revolver for police, and 45 for the military. The rules were loose enough to allow a lot of cross over. Revolver shooters can shoot a revolver for all three stages if they chose to.
The military found out quickly, that the 45 was a better gun for accuracy at the 50 yard line, and it didn't hurt their scores at the short line so it was advantageous to shoot both center fire and 45 with that gun.

Now the trend is going the other way. You will see many of the better shooters, shooting a 9mm in the center fire match because it is a more accurate gun, can be built on the same 1911 platform they are familiar with, and also, a 2.5 pound trigger is legal on a center fire gun (as long as it is not a 45).

We who shoot bullseye don't want to do anything beyond what the rules require to discourage people from coming to a match. So for those who don't want to go the whole three gun route, for whatever reason, two guns, is just fine.

As others have said, if you just want to do 22, shoot international but do the math, because travel costs will exceed your ammo costs by a huge margin.