TargetTalk

Many of these new rule changes are being put in place to enhance the visibility of the sport on TV. Maybe the pockets add an undesireable "pooch" to the jacket that is deemed unprofessional.

--Or maybe ISSF figures that since beach volleyball does not have pockets, our sport does not need them either??

For several years the only shooting I watched on TV was the Biathlon. The falling of the targets made it very easy to follow.
Only with the electronic targets for the non-winter events I started having a similar ‘being there’ experience. Before it was like watching chess or paint dry...

Beach volleyball had its own clothing controversy this year… no one was really prepared for the colder temps… and you can say what you want, goose bumps ruin the nicest summer tan...

Oh, one field of shooting has peaked in interest… archery… shame the heroine of “The Hunger Games” used a bow instead of a shotgun, air rifle or 3P small-bore… that might be the exposure everyone is looking for… but would you really be prepared for a flood of Hello Kitty shirt wearing girls at your local range ?

Volker wrote:shame the heroine of “The Hunger Games” used a bow instead of a shotgun, air rifle or 3P small-bore… that might be the exposure everyone is looking for…

I dunno - did we get any upturn in interest after "Sniper" or "Shooter" or "Shoot 'em Up" came out?

but would you really be prepared for a flood of Hello Kitty shirt wearing girls at your local range ?

:D

Sparks wrote:I dunno - did we get any upturn in interest after "Sniper" or "Shooter" or "Shoot 'em Up" came out?

Might have to ask the recruiting offices... I think Top Gun had an impact for the Navy. G.I. Jane might have had one for the Seals...
At least Sniper had the connection between Olympic shooter and sniper right there.
But I get your point.

And the t-shirt is awesome :)

Volker wrote:… but would you really be prepared for a flood of Hello Kitty shirt wearing girls at your local range ?

I wouldn't be prepared but I'd certainly be welcoming.

Show up to the Women's week of the JOs ... lots of Hello Kitty stuff.

jhmartin wrote:Show up to the Women's week of the JOs ... lots of Hello Kitty stuff.

I know, and I think it's cool. Having done youth training before (fire department though) I'm always excited to see these developments.

Volker wrote:… but if a jacket is allowed and it makes me shoot better in competition, why should I not use it ?

No reason at all.

If the jacket rules allowed it to be solidly pre-formed to the exact shape you needed to shoot even better then you would be entitled to use that as well.

The problem is, at what point could the clothing unacceptably take over, or give that impression, from the "athletic performance" required to shoot well. IMHO that is what the discussion and possible changes are all about.

RobStubbs wrote:I don't think the reason for rule changes are anything about fairness, rather a desire to make the sport look more tv friendly. Which as we all know is a joke because anyone watching the Olympics will know they didn't even televise the athletes turning to the crowd (they started at the end of sighters). They also appear concerned about the clothing offering too much support. A point I can understand but I don't know how you can safely change that without very significant equipment changes (like take a couple of kg's off the rifles).

Rob.

They're not exactly that heavy. FT rigs are much more weighty.

Remember the support is supposed to travel down bone, most of it down the front leg and arm, not the back. It's not a weight lifting competition.

Sparks, 4 hours a day 4 days a week is fine, but at what level are you trying to compete?

robf wrote:They're not exactly that heavy. FT rigs are much more weighty.

I don't remember ever seeing anyone shoot an F-class or FT rifle from the standing position though... or even prone with a sling for that matter. Target Rifle maybe, but they're much lighter...

Sparks, 4 hours a day 4 days a week is fine, but at what level are you trying to compete?

Internationally, though I've only made it as far as hitting the MQS in small internationals like Intershoot so far.

robf wrote:Remember the support is supposed to travel down bone, most of it down the front leg and arm, not the back. It's not a weight lifting competition.

For a 5-7 kg rifle yes, but where do you expect the other 35 kg (of a 70 kg adult man) travels?

EJ wrote:

robf wrote:Remember the support is supposed to travel down bone, most of it down the front leg and arm, not the back. It's not a weight lifting competition.

For a 5-7 kg rifle yes, but where do you expect the other 35 kg (of a 70 kg adult man) travels?

Well if weight is 75/25 then still most of it goes through the front leg... and the addition of a rifle is only in addition to normal stance. The spine takes a very similar load weight wise if you're shooting standing or not, because the CofG is normally around the front support point of the rifle, which travels down the front leg. It also makes no account for someone losing or gaining 5-7kgs. If weight is such an issue, why do we see so many 'heavy' shooters...? The top flight may be trim, but we're not talking top flight are we... they have already been through the performance/injury debate.

On an FT GP, there's between 6 & 4 standing targets out of the 50. In the worlds SA, it was more like 12 per day.
In silhouette shooting there's 40 targets, all standing. Shooting jackets and gloves are banned (in the FT version). The Nefta classic has been running for 20 years plus and is shot by all age ranges.

If it was so important, we'd be issuing jackets along with ear defenders as must have range safety equipment for standing competition wouldn't we?

Sparks wrote:

robf wrote:They're not exactly that heavy. FT rigs are much more weighty.

I don't remember ever seeing anyone shoot an F-class or FT rifle from the standing position though... or even prone with a sling for that matter. Target Rifle maybe, but they're much lighter...

Sparks, 4 hours a day 4 days a week is fine, but at what level are you trying to compete?

Internationally, though I've only made it as far as hitting the MQS in small internationals like Intershoot so far.

You may be not thinking of the FT i am. Typically a 12 ft-lb version of a 10m target rifle carrying a 3lb scope on top, shot outdoors in 3 positions. Often the addition of custom stocks and other items mean these weigh in 15lb+.

robf wrote:You may be not thinking of the FT i am. Typically a 12 ft-lb version of a 10m target rifle carrying a 3lb scope on top, shot outdoors in 3 positions. Often the addition of custom stocks and other items mean these weigh in 15lb+.

Ah, I know what you're talking about now. But that makes even less sense to me - don't they fire only one or two shots, then move off to the next firing position?

robf wrote:Well if weight is 75/25 then still most of it goes through the front leg... and the addition of a rifle is only in addition to normal stance. The spine takes a very similar load weight wise if you're shooting standing or not, because the CofG is normally around the front support point of the rifle, which travels down the front leg. It also makes no account for someone losing or gaining 5-7kgs. If weight is such an issue, why do we see so many 'heavy' shooters...? The top flight may be trim, but we're not talking top flight are we... they have already been through the performance/injury debate.

I am talking about shooters who are trying to become better at what they are doing, meaning training at least 10 h/week.

I'm not sure I understand; the only weight that can travel through a leg-hip-fore arm setup is a percentage of the rifle, head, left arm and right arm. Since all are attached to the body on some way there will also be weight going through the spine (maybe not exactly 35 kg but it's a significant load). The problem isn't that it travels here, the problem is how the hip/spine is aligned. Most standing shooters have adopted a stance where the hip is positioned off-center (tilted forward) and a lesser use of muscular support creates a heavy point load in the lower back. This position has probably showed up because the clothes allow it and also because it's a more stable one (more stable high scores). So either people will continue using it (and more will get back problem and give up the sport) or change to a more upright position and scores will drop slightly (population level).

EJ wrote:I am talking about shooters who are trying to become better at what they are doing, meaning training at least 10 h/week.

Is that inclusive of, exclusive of, or ignoring risk specific strength and conditioning training.

David Levene wrote:Is that inclusive of, exclusive of, or ignoring risk specific strength and conditioning training.

In my world, strength training is mandatory for this group of shooters.
I really think it should be mandatory for everyone, there're just too many positive effects from it, but also see the problem with that approach. So as a minimum, those who are trying to become better at something physical (shooting) should be involved in a strength and conditioning routine. Reasons: better postural stability and fine muscle control as well as injury prevention and maintenance. My opinion.