TargetTalk

Tim S wrote:

holmqer wrote: It just seemed to me that the equipment was doing all the work, and I was along for the ride.

I think you rather undersell yourself. Equipment is important to a degree the jacket has to fit in certain critical areas, and rifle and ammo need to be good), but human talent is still the deciding factor. The kit won't compensate for not being able to align the sights with the target stress-free, not for a wobbly hold, nor for poor trigger release, poor breathing technique, or not being able to read the wind on outdoor ranges. I've seen many novice shooters using reasonable equipment shoot groups that barely fit the target because they had not mastered the basic techniques of shooting.

There was a discussion on the pistol forum last year that concluded that pistol shooters tend to be better rifle shooters, than rifle shooters make as pistol shooters.

I don't have the experience to know if this pistol shooters vs rifle shooters argument is valid. I just used the same marksmanship techniques I employ trying to improve my pistol shooting to the rifle, and it seemed to work out ok.

dschaller wrote:An unintended new cost of the expensive clothing is that now 3P .22 rewards group size that is significantly smaller than most top level guns are capable of attaining. This will results in an equipment race to try and obtain .22 rifles (and ammo) that can group consistent 10.9 scores. With 10x currently costing $20 a box, and guns that are $4k or more, where do you think that will end up? As a pistol shooter, all I can say is the rifle shooters have brought this onto themselves.

You mean Prone .22? 3P still uses integer, and no one has yet shot a 1200.

Prone is becoming somewhat of an arms race in terms of finding the barrel/ammo combination that will allow you to be competitive (hint: buy a Bleiker). I don't really treat anything above a 10.7 as skill - reasonable gear and a skilled shooter will get a shot in the high 10s, but whether that shot is a .7/.8/.9 is entirely down to luck. Obviously a more skilled shooter will have more "luck", because if you're putting them all in the .6-.7 ring, statistically more will sit in the .9 ring than if you're only grouping out to the low 10s. But the difference between a .8 and a .9 isn't really down to you, it's beyond your control.

The Eley range record is 641/654, so regardless of how skilled you are, there's a significant element of chance in the high decimals - the ammunition itself is costing you at least 13 points off the HPS!

3P is more open with a better spread of scores. Of course in terms of cost, the new finals with position changes do encourage people to have everything in triplicate - 3 butt plates, 3 sets of sights, etc which is a significant financial outlay.

I know there are those within the ISSF who are concerned about the cost that having all the gear imposes*, especially on new entrants to the sport (as opposed to those adding to existing kit), and I know they feel the sport has perhaps been led in places by the manufacturers, which is something they want to address - actually ensuring people aren't priced out rather than worrying about whether the heel of your plate reaches 50mm or 60 mm back.

*Potentially £8-10k if you go all out - £5k for the Bleiker, £1.5k for jacket/trousers/boots, £1k for 3 buttplates for your choice, £1k for accessories (stativ, kneeling roll, kit bag, Peli case, etc). And then you're into batch-testing ammunition, shelling out for your choice of Tenex or R50, etc.


I wouldn't be at all surprised to see restrictions imposed in 2017 limiting the number of accessories you can use (1 butt plate, 1 set of sights), which will naturally lead to a simplifying of set-ups to a more "standard" configuration, since you can't get too finickety if you have to change your plate from Prone to Kneeling to Standing in under a minute in a final).

Ultimately it might even be that they introduce a "Standard Rifle" format to get away from the notion that it is the kit which buys success, but I imagine a change of that nature wouldn't come around at least until the 2021 rulebook after years of wrangling, and in the end it would be a set of rules that includes most existing rifles/stocks but with simplified butt arrangements, etc - they can't just say "right, this is what you're shooting with now, all your existing gear is banned and worthless", but as they did with buttplate heels, they might limit the scope of adjustment, which will obviously drive stock design going forwards. Manufacturers aren't going to build in adjustments you're not allowed to use, and we know simpler stocks are cheaper.

holmqer wrote:Going into the smallbore rifle match, I had played with a .223 and shot a few boxes of ammo for fun on a weekend, and never shot a smallbore rifle. I took 10 practice shots with no garb, and was all over the paper with a borrowed rifle. Then I borrowed some garb that sort of fit me and tried a 40 shot match getting 398-21X the first match and 393-27X the second match. This put me in the middle of the pack of folks who had done this for years.

I had expected something like my introduction to pistol where I would have started off shooting 20% to 33% (100 to 133 points) then if I kept at it, improved into the 300s after a year. Instead with a 30 year old Winchester 52 I was shooting 99% score and 50% plus Xs with no real previous rifle experience. This totally perplexed me as I am by no means gods gift to marksmanship. It just seemed to me that the equipment was doing all the work, and I was along for the ride.

I think it's a different learning curve for the two disciplines, but also simply the way the results are presented. Competitions on the (relatively large) NRA targets are typically broken on x-count, with many people shooting HPS. On the ISSF targets, 600 was a rare sight (though obviously not unheard of), and obviously they've moved to decimal now. It's not so hard to get a "decent" score, but then you're into fighting for the Xs.

You could make the targets smaller and your "score" would drop - make X the new 10, and 10 the new 9, and you'd get score development more akin to pistol - it's just how the arbitrary rings on the paper add up!

I could draw some comparison to snow sports.

In my experience, skiing is very easy to get started on and be able to ski passably/negotiate a slope. But then to progress you need to develop parallel turns and advanced skills, etc.

With snowboarding, you will spend your first couple of days on your backside wondering why you're bothering, and then once you have the basics down, you can develop quite a lot, and it's only if you want to be able to carve powder off-piste or ride half-pipes that you need to develop more advanced skills.

Rifles are an inherently more stable platform than pistols, and like skiing, you have lots of points of contact (2 hands, buttplate, cheek), so if you snatch the trigger then you'll wobble but it won't necessarily put you in the 2 ring, because that's one set of muscles fighting against three other contacts.

Pistols have one point of contact (like a snowboard!), you need to get everything pretty tight before you can do anything at all!

Hemmers wrote: they can't just say "right, this is what you're shooting with now, all your existing gear is banned and worthless".

Well, that's exactly what they did with Rapid Fire pistols in 2005. They became expensive paperweights overnight. Everyone complained (me included) but looking back 10 years on I think it was a good move.

j-team wrote:

Hemmers wrote: they can't just say "right, this is what you're shooting with now, all your existing gear is banned and worthless".

Well, that's exactly what they did with Rapid Fire pistols in 2005. They became expensive paperweights overnight. Everyone complained (me included) but looking back 10 years on I think it was a good move.

I hadn't realised that (started shooting competitively in 2005, and not much exposure to pistol until later - and we don't have RFP in the UK), though a quick bit of googling tells me that they restricted it to Sport Pistols - so anyone shooting .22Short needed a new pistol, anyone shooting .22lr was okay, provided their grip and trigger were legal?

In your position I would also have been outraged I think, and complained vociferously!

I think in terms of rifles, there's two things. Firstly, what did a RF Pistol cost - £800-1500? It's a lot, but still a step below banning £5k Bleikers.

Secondly, what was the rationale behind the move? Why did they do it?

From the vibes I get, the ISSF want to spread the sport, and you can't move into 2nd world countries (or even develop it in the US/Europe) if the price of admission is a £5k Bleiker, and everything short of that is going to leave you at an inherent disadvantage (in Prone anyway). Whichever way you were shooting RFP, the price of admission was probably a lot lower (although pistol is just generally cheaper to get into than rifle), so I'm guessing that wasn't why they banned .22short?

All this said, the thing is, the accuracy of a barrel isn't something the ISSF can really regulate - they control the targets, and they can ban stock features/dimensions, or the number of accessories you can have on the firing point. That reduces cost in terms of not buying 3 sets of sights, or potentially cheaper/simpler stocks, but if a manufacturer wants to charge £3+k for their magic barrelled actions, that's not something the ISSF can control.

I'm o-o-o-ld enough to remember when the Russian et al FP team showed up at the London Olympics all wearing these heavy looking leather jackets and what looked like ski boots. They all developed an backward leaning style with their off hands using the, LARGE side pockets, too help tightening their positions for their "hold." I still remember my side comments on these men " looked like Gambino hit men." ........"Doc"

Hemmers wrote:I know there are those within the ISSF who are concerned about the cost that having all the gear imposes*, especially on new entrants to the sport (as opposed to those adding to existing kit)

I feel that the cost argument is valid, but often a little overstated.

If you're starting out and shooting your local/regional matches then you don't need top of the line gear. You need serviceable stuff that fits, and that kind of gear can often be acquired second hand or at least for more reasonable prices. It's also more likely that you can borrow bits and pieces and/or use club kit that will allow you to spread out your spending over a number of years. It was almost 10 years before I had "one of everything".

If you actually need to eke out every point because you're shooting the World Cup circuit then a) you're probably in the additive phase of gear acquisition and b) the cost of equipment is small relative to the other things you're spending money on. The cost of the travel alone adds up pretty quickly, you could easily spend the cost of a Bleiker per year on that. Then add in the cost of the bigger volume of ammunition you shoot and you begin to realise that the amortised cost of a Bleiker or custom tailored jacket over its lifetime is not what you should be worrying about.

I will say one thing though, I'm glad I live in Europe near all the manufacturers. Folks in the US appear to pay 20-25% more for stuff than I do, even after taking into account that I'm paying 19-23% VAT (sales tax) that the manufacturers don't need to charge them. I pay ~$16/box for Tenex for example. A Bleiker in the aluminium stock costs about $7500 from my nearest supplier. A quick search says they're over $9000 for the same rifle in the USA!

Hemmers wrote:

j-team wrote:

Hemmers wrote: they can't just say "right, this is what you're shooting with now, all your existing gear is banned and worthless".

Well, that's exactly what they did with Rapid Fire pistols in 2005. They became expensive paperweights overnight. Everyone complained (me included) but looking back 10 years on I think it was a good move.

I hadn't realised that (started shooting competitively in 2005, and not much exposure to pistol until later - and we don't have RFP in the UK), though a quick bit of googling tells me that they restricted it to Sport Pistols - so anyone shooting .22Short needed a new pistol, anyone shooting .22lr was okay, provided their grip and trigger were legal?

In your position I would also have been outraged I think, and complained vociferously!

I think in terms of rifles, there's two things. Firstly, what did a RF Pistol cost - £800-1500? It's a lot, but still a step below banning £5k Bleikers.

Secondly, what was the rationale behind the move? Why did they do it?

From the vibes I get, the ISSF want to spread the sport, and you can't move into 2nd world countries (or even develop it in the US/Europe) if the price of admission is a £5k Bleiker, and everything short of that is going to leave you at an inherent disadvantage (in Prone anyway). Whichever way you were shooting RFP, the price of admission was probably a lot lower (although pistol is just generally cheaper to get into than rifle), so I'm guessing that wasn't why they banned .22short?

All this said, the thing is, the accuracy of a barrel isn't something the ISSF can really regulate - they control the targets, and they can ban stock features/dimensions, or the number of accessories you can have on the firing point. That reduces cost in terms of not buying 3 sets of sights, or potentially cheaper/simpler stocks, but if a manufacturer wants to charge £3+k for their magic barrelled actions, that's not something the ISSF can control.

from what i understand the banned 22 short rapidfire pistols for 2 main reasons. firstly to simplyfy and reduce cost. yes it made 22shorts worthless but it didnt require people to uy a new pistol because most of them originally had to have a standard postol and a rapid fire pistol. Secondly the scores were getting too high in rapidfire.
Im mostly a pistol shooter and have just taken up small bore shooting as well. I wish they had of baned jackets instead of changing the scoring. at least in prone anyway. and to say an older person couldnt shoot prone without a jacket is just plain wrong. I watched a 94 year old a couple of months ago shoot fullbore with no jacket. he did suprisingly well as well.

i beleive it would deop the scores off a little bit. not a lot but would probably eliminate the need to be shooting a 10k rifle in order to be competitive at an elete level

Muffo how far do you suggest going with banning coats, are you suggesting shooting with bare arms or some form of light coat,which would then start a race all over again to get the "best" Coat.

Martin Catley wrote:Muffo how far do you suggest going with banning coats, are you suggesting shooting with bare arms or some form of light coat,which would then start a race all over again to get the "best" Coat.

i would suggest banning any form of supportive jacket in 50m prone. no race for anything when it cant be used.

id still allow a sling and glove. plus you could allow a pad to be warn under the sling to spread the load on the arm

id probably leave 3p untouched.

Let's be honest: the equipment and clothing helps with scores. The rules have evolved over decades so that everyone knows the boundaries.

Let's also be honest about the nature of target shooting in general and "free rifle" in particular: a large part of the skill involved is the manipulation of the equipment.

If these facts are not to your taste, there are honorable and highly demanding disciplines that do not allow this degree of equipment. For instance, NRA silhouette shooting is extremely difficult, does not allow all the gear that International style allows, and can be shot as Air, Rim Fire and High Power. Of course, there is no bandage for the ego cut inflicted for dropping from a 360/400 standing to a 24/40 in silhouette.

Each discipline has its unique pleasures and quirks. As we did not invent the sports, but rather inherited them, let us enjoy them as they where presented to us and insure their traditions are also passed on.

There is a real risk that any event seen as an equipment race and not a physical or skill sport will be dropped as an Olympic event (forgetting about all the other reasons events are dropped).
Boring events are also dropped, watching someone motionless, covered head to foot in bulky clothing, not apparently exerting themselves and measuring their output in fractions of millimetres is not exciting however you look at it (and I'm an engineer, and I find very boring things exciting).

If people want an equipment race let them shoot benchrest. Three positional benchrest would seem a triple-redundant event to me.

According to the rumours I heard, and I'm a long way down the chain from the horses mouth, .22 short was dropped after some disastrous international meetings with a multitude of malfunctions due to ammunition issues, and nil interest by the manufacturers in fixing the problem since the sales volumes were so low.

I think the ammo was OK...at the highest level. RWS, Eley, and Lapua were making excellent high-end ammunition.

The RF rules change appeared to be intended to give mid-grade shooters with .22LR pistols a fighting chance. By 2000, things had reached a point where only two companies, Walther and Pardini, were making RF pistols. The rules change allowed one pistol design to be useable in STD, WSP, and RF disciplines. A broader customer base, and one that had some mid-grade pistols available for new shooters.

WRT the shooting jackets, I don't have a dog in the fight over the cartridge guns. I would like to see them banned in MLAIC competition.

As if any shooting sport was not expensive enough.

It's air pistol, your not looking for 10.5's every time, with jackets your shot average may be slightly higher but you lose the excitement of it. One of the reasons I am not fond of 3par is because you are basically pressed to shoot all tens. I like having to work for my tens, and it makes the game more exciting.

This has been a pretty interesting discussion. One factor that has only been mentioned in passing is the average age of the shooting sports population, which by most accounts is rising.

Purists in the pistol disciplines decry the NRA rule changes to accommodate the declining physical condition of an aging participation base. I don't know much about the demographics of the non-US shooting sports community. It seems like some of the rifle associated equipment is of the same nature, while it helps everyone, it also keeps older shooters competitive. It seems like a different solution to the same problem.

Muffo wrote:

Martin Catley wrote:Muffo how far do you suggest going with banning coats, are you suggesting shooting with bare arms or some form of light coat,which would then start a race all over again to get the "best" Coat.

i would suggest banning any form of supportive jacket in 50m prone. no race for anything when it cant be used.

id still allow a sling and glove. plus you could allow a pad to be warn under the sling to spread the load on the arm

id probably leave 3p untouched.

Muffo, just how much support do you think a jacket gives in prone?

One of the main reasons a jacket is worn is to help hold the sling in place, see how you go doing a match having to constantly reposition the sling on your arm. You'll see that a lot of top shooters only do the top button up as there is no need to use the stiffness of the jacket as a support. Yes they are cut in a way that may seem to support but it's more to do with ergonomics rather than as a straight out support mechanism.
Now in 3p the support from the clothing would be the supposed place to look at and is one area that is always undergoing some sort of review.

I think it gives quiet a large amount of stability. I also shoot fullbore and service rifle. in service rifle any form of restrictive clothing is baned. I have a patch on my sleeve that the sling sits above so it locates in the same spot every time. a jacket isnt required to hold the sling.

using my service sling and no jacket with my fullbore rifle I shoot on average 2 inch groups at 100m. with my jacket on with the top 3 clips done up i average .5 inch groups so i think it makes a pretty huge difference

A jacket isn't required to hold a sling, but it holds the sling better than your arm. What the jacket does in prone (beyond cushioning the elbows, which no one appears to disagree with), is support the sling, and transfer the weight across the shoulders, reducing fatigue. With a jacket and a correctly placed sling keeper, the sling cuff does not need to be tourniquet tight around the arm to stay put, rather it can be left more open which reduces the chance of picking up a pulse beat.

I would say that any comparison between service shooting and smallbore is inherently flawed. The very point of service shooting, and the challenge, is to accept the limitations of service equipment, whereas for smallbore it's mastering the small technicalities to hit a very small 10-ring.

If the anti-jacket argument is taken to its extreme we should just shoot bows, English Warbows obviously, as firearms are just a human invention to make it easier. Oh wait, archery did the same thing and allowed modern bows too.

Tim S wrote:A jacket isn't required to hold a sling, but it holds the sling better than your arm. What the jacket does in prone (beyond cushioning the elbows, which no one appears to disagree with), is support the sling, and transfer the weight across the shoulders, reducing fatigue. With a jacket and a correctly placed sling keeper, the sling cuff does not need to be tourniquet tight around the arm to stay put, rather it can be left more open which reduces the chance of picking up a pulse beat.

I would say that any comparison between service shooting and smallbore is inherently flawed. The very point of service shooting, and the challenge, is to accept the limitations of service equipment, whereas for smallbore it's mastering the small technicalities to hit a very small 10-ring.

If the anti-jacket argument is taken to its extreme we should just shoot bows, English Warbows obviously, as firearms are just a human invention to make it easier. Oh wait, archery did the same thing and allowed modern bows too.

the problem with that statement is its not just a matter of
mastering the small technicalities to hit a very small 10-ring. its also a requiremt to sink more than 10k into equipment as shooting 10s is not good enough. the only link i made to service rifle is to show you dont need a jacket to hold a sling.
I am only nee to shooting smallbore and I will never be a top level shooter simply because I wont have the cash to compete.
where as with pistols without all the supportive aids you can get to the highest level with a 1200 dollar second hand air pistol, a 150 dollar free pistol.

If you removed the jackets then an old anschutz in factory form would still be enough to get to a really high level

If i wasnt using smallbore to improve my service rifle shooting i wouldn't be doing because of these factors and i bet a lot of young guys are in the same boat and simply fo and shoot something cheaper

Muffo wrote: the problem with that statement is its not just a matter of
mastering the small technicalities to hit a very small 10-ring. its also a requiremt to sink more than 10k into equipment as shooting 10s is not good enough.

I could not disagree more strongly. Unless second hand equipment isn't available in Australia, there is no need for new, intermediate shooters to spend that much money. Second hand rifles can be extremely competitive at local, and even national level; one shooter with a BSA Mk III has dominated NSRA postal matches for nearly a decade. Yes a Bleiker is a good investment for a would-be Olympian, but how many shooters are really trying to reach that level? The answer is relatively few. The majority of shooters do not need a Bleiker (wanting one is entirely different).

Yes higher level national shooters will have a lot of kit, which added together can be expensive, but most accumulate this over many years. They don't buy it all at once, but start with a cheap jacket, and a second hand rifle, then add or upgrade items; scope, stand, mat, extra sights, gadgets, custom jacket, new barrel etc. The initial outlay is not great, as beginners simply do not need the most expensive kit.

Tim S wrote:

Muffo wrote: the problem with that statement is its not just a matter of
mastering the small technicalities to hit a very small 10-ring. its also a requiremt to sink more than 10k into equipment as shooting 10s is not good enough.

I could not disagree more strongly. Unless second hand equipment isn't available in Australia, there is no need for new, intermediate shooters to spend that much money. Second hand rifles can be extremely competitive at local, and even national level; one shooter with a BSA Mk III has dominated NSRA postal matches for nearly a decade. Yes a Bleiker is a good investment for a would-be Olympian, but how many shooters are really trying to reach that level? The answer is relatively few. The majority of shooters do not need a Bleiker (wanting one is entirely different).

Yes higher level national shooters will have a lot of kit, which added together can be expensive, but most accumulate this over many years. They don't buy it all at once, but start with a cheap jacket, and a second hand rifle, then add or upgrade items; scope, stand, mat, extra sights, gadgets, custom jacket, new barrel etc. The initial outlay is not great, as beginners simply do not need the most expensive kit.

+1
Tim,
Most clubs here will have old rifles, jackets and slings beginners can use to learn the basics and if they want, move into competition with. I've been to quite a few competitions here in Sydney with shooters still happy to use their old BSAs or Annie's to good effect. Since most clubs still use paper targets then the need to shoot 10.9s all day and have the supposed tech advantage to do so is a myth.
Given that I'm well paid and was able to do so I did pay for new gear after six months of trying second hand gear and using club rifles (1970-80s Annie's). This older gear, however, in the right hands will enable a dedicated person to reach A grade in the same way new equipment can. It takes time and good practice.
As for comparing service rifle to smallbore, jeez that's like comparing a track bicycle to a mountain bike. Yep do similar things but at opposite ends of the spectrum.