TargetTalk

With all the controversy regarding jackets, pants, shoes/boots could we not just eliminate a lot of contention by getting rid of the pants. Of all the gear they seem to be fairly expensive and mostly responsible for the dreaded penguin walk. While were at it get rid of the boots to. What's the worst that could happen - scores come down.

Just a thought from a guy too cheap to buy pants.

Tom

What about all of the people who have pants? Do we eat the cost? All monetary suggestions aside, I believe that they provide a lot of support for your back. I don't think there is a lack of competition with the pants especially now with the new USA 50 target change. Find a good pair of used pants and come play with us supported canvas fans!

jmkwyo

If the pants "provide support" is this not against the rules which do not allow artificial support?

Shooting pants began as normal weight pants with patches for the knees for the kneeling position, and in NRA competition a patch on the seat for the sitting position. No support for the back, and I would happily return to that. Same with the jacket, light weight with elbow patches for kneeling. We could do away with the jacket and allow thicker prone mats to protect the elbows, while negating the artificial support given by today's jackets. Less costs for everyone in the long term

If the rifles were lighter, why would you need so much support? I didn't see any Biathlon shooters using supportive coats or pants. I think that the special items should go.

I shot position back in the late 70s when the rifles were heavy and there were no special pants. Our scores were considerable lower (well, at least mine were) than they are today. I was told in the 90s that the clothing was the reason for the increase in scores because of the "exoskeleton" support. I'm in favor of lower scores without the supportive clothing.

I feel golf has gone in the wrong direction with technology making short courses obsolete because of the distance they allow the ball to go. The same thing can happen with rifle shooting. We can only go so small with the target before we have to increase the distance.

As much as people want to keep bringing up that shooting pants should not bring artificial support, everyone knows they give lower back support... and the rifles are too heavy to do without it. If they banned the pants I personally could no longer shoot standing due to the large curvature of my back. It doesn't matter that I am wearing pants that are supporting my back, so is everyone else on the firing line.

The competitive shooters don't want rules changed, they are perfectly fine with the way we do things and how the scoring works. The cost of equipment is not an argument as far as I am concerned. If you are competitive enough to buy the expensive equipment then you are going to be spending far more money consistently on air travel, excess baggage fees, ammunition and accommodation than the once of cost of your rifles and the once every few years you need to spend on a new jacket and pants. Simply put, if you can't afford a pair of shooting pants you definitely cannot afford to shoot competitively in this sport, as the price of a pair of shooting pants is the same as it will cost you to go to a single national competition.

Sustainability of the sport is a big issue, but it has nothing to do with equipment and rules and everything to do with marketing. If the ISSF spent as much time and energy marketing the sport as they did arguing about rules we would be in a much better position. They are never going to get anywhere screwing about with the rules.

Freepistol wrote:I'm in favor of lower scores without the supportive clothing.

It's not just about scores, there's a very real argument that the pants are important for lower back and lumbar support. Weightlifters wear belts to support and protect their lower backs from damage.

I'm guessing you shot on boxes, or ran the targets out and back on rails like air shooters do when electronics are not available.
These force a longer break, and depending on whether or not you have a gremlin to change your cards for you, can force a much greater break in position than the shooters get now, when the most they move is to put the rifle on the stativ to reload.

Shooters are carrying much lower weights, but for much longer and sustained periods. I know people who attribute lower back problems to shooting air rifle and 3P without trousers in their early years, and after several years realised the errors of their ways. Now they physically can't complete a course of fire without them.

Now, maybe shooting postures have developed on the basis people wear trousers and can get away with more - so when people develop positions that they should wear pants for (but don't) they damage their backs. Or they get set up incorrectly such that they load their spines poorly. The point is though, if you just take away pants and everyone carries on as they are, then everyone will have mullered discs inside 10 years.


The penguin walk thing is a joke. It's a fallacious non-argument the ISSF use to try and justify this proposal. Shooters don't walk like that because their movements are constrained by the gear. They walk like that to minimise how much they flex the soles of their boots, and to keep them as flat and stiff as possible (within the rules).
Now some might say ban the boots as well and make people wear trainers like the pistol shooters do, but whatever footwear people use, they will walk flat-footed to keep that chosen pair of shoes as flat as possible. Pistol shooters wear special flat-soled ankle trainers, but you don't see them jogging or walking normally in them. They swap them off as soon as they finish shooting in order to preserve their flatness.

You will never get rid of the penguin walk regardless of what tinkering you may do with the rules regarding pants and boots (unless you make a ruling that shooting footwear may only be worn on the firing point, and shooters are to change into street shoes as soon as they move back beyond the firing point).

Besides, have you ever looked at the track cyclists walking? They can't - their shoes have cleats on the sole, and they have to do their own funny walk because of it. If the IOC want athletes to walk normally and are going to pressure federations over it, they should ban cycling cleats as well - millions of people cycle everyday with bare pedals and no cleats or toe-clips, so clearly they're not necessary except that the sport has widely adopted them (as shooting has pants).

What about skiiers? They can't possibly flex their ankles in those boots. Why not make them strap normal shoes to their skis? They'll have to go slower, but isn't what this whole discussion is leading to? We'll take lower scores in favour of shedding specialist gear. Body armour is worn for all manner of sports - pants are arguably similar in their role to protect long-term spinal health. We've already mentioned back supports for weight-lifters which allow them to lift weights greater than that which they might safely be able to do otherwise. The list goes on.
What's special about shooting that the kit needs to be stripped back? Freepistol is the first shooter I've heard from with any sort of support for these proposals. Everyone else I've spoken to, or read opinions from on the web has been firmly against it, and the counter-movement has after all got heavyweight support like Rajmond Debevic who leaked it in the first place.


Please also bear in mind these proposals come from a committee chaired by an individual on record as saying all materials for jackets should be banned except for leather. Including canvas, which pretty much every jacket includes to some extent! He basically wants us all to revert to how he shot back in the 1970s.
Well here's some news. Technology marches on, and whilst it's topical to limit or prevent arms races take place (as has happened in swimming), meddling for meddling's sake is unwelcome.
As long as materials pas EC for flexibility, thickness, etc, where's the issue? Does it matter if it's leather, canvas or a synthetic rubber? As long as it's flexible enough it shouldn't provide undue/unfair support.

The "they provide artificial support" argument doesn't really add up either. Jackets provide support as do slings, but they've been used since before living memory. They may have developed a bit from buttoning the 2-point sling into an epaulet on your tunic shoulder, but the principle remains the same - people modifying their clothes and equipment to improve their aim.

Freepistol wrote:Our scores were considerable lower (well, at least mine were) than they are today. I was told in the 90s that the clothing was the reason for the increase in scores because of the "exoskeleton" support.

If I may be so bold, I think you may find advances in rifle and ammunition technology have as much to answer for as the clothing, but you're not suggesting we all restrict ourselves to 1970s rifles are you?
Improvements in production techniques, CAD/CAM, and the growth of batch testing to match the gun and ammo mean the gun/ammo combinations are more accurate than ever before and get higher scores from the bench even on newer, smaller targets.

I'm also in the camp of get rid of the special clothes. If no one uses them, we would all be on the level playing field.

Kind of reminds me of the steroids in sports, "everyone else does them, so I have to to compete". (necessary evil)

I know this is not a popular opinion because we paid a lot of money for the stuff, and we like the higher scores it helps us achieve. But, the newcomer is bewildered with it, and the cost to get serious probably turns them away.

Does any research exist that definitively shows that pants actually do provide a protective function? I'm not sure that they can be compared to weight lifter belts.

Tom

If we want our tenure in 3p and air shooting to be like that of women's gymnastics, then by all means get rid of the pants. I'm one of the older shooters now and there is no way in the world I could still shoot 3p without the support of my trousers.

Maybe that is what is really behind this attack on our clothes? The non-pretty older shooters are still winning occasionally. We don't present as nice of and image to the ISSF/IOC as the younger shooters on the medal stand. It is getting to be all about tv ratings instead of supporting a sport for life.

Just my opinion. I'd like to stay shooting as long as I can. I love this sport.

Eric

Hello,

I have been shooting for a long time, and I mainly shoot high-power, however I am getting back into Air Rifle after a 13 year break.

I shot a match for the fist time a few weeks ago and I can tell you that I have a good offhand position, however I was feeling my lower back after only 30 rounds down range. I was shooting with flip flops and shorts due to the rules that say you can't wear jeans.

I don't think that the clothing is very expensive, when you look at it from a entry level stand point, you can get a starter or junior set for $300 that will last for a few years, and then you need to have a plan to replace them as you grow and get better.

I have bought a few custom jackets in my day and they were not cheap, however it is a part of the sport I picked, and I love every minute of it.

I for one am not for banning the pants or even the shoes.

Shawn

smckenna03 wrote:Hello,
I was shooting with flip flops and shorts due to the rules that say you can't wear jeans.

You can't wear jeans? How is that restriction justified given (what I would assume would be) the more supportive pants shooters are allowed to wear?

I have to say it would not bother me either if pants were gone. I have seen all the medical arguements and think it is crap. I too shot in the 70's and all we use were street pants. And I know the common conception seems to be now that rifles only weighed pound or two then but my 1413 I shot then was every bit as heavy, maybe heavier, than my 2013 of today.

It seems to me all the peole here who actually agree with the ISSF on this issue are not really competive shooters, they are just plinkers who dont really care either way.

They keep on coming up with stupid ways to justify the ISSF

If you were serious about your shooting, you would be trying to take advantage of all the "legal" equipment you could.

As for the level playing field garbage, all competitive shooters use the jackets, pants and boots so were is the disadvantage???

As for the cost, if you are passionate enough about your shooting and want to get to the top, money isn't an issue.

Shooting isn't a seasonal sport where you have to justify what you spend in a two month period, its a life sport.

Take shooting jacket for example, say it cost $1000 (aus), over a one year period its only $2.70 a day, just have one less Soy milk latte a day

I'm sure everyone can survive with one less coffee per day

As for the support, I could not shoot air rifle with out the jacket and pants now.

When I was about 9 yrs old I started my shooting career with sporting centerfire rifles weighing around 5 to 6 kg with scopes.

I did this for about 8 yrs with out jackets and pants then I started smalbore 3p.

By the the time I was 26 I had to give up 3p due to degenerative disc's in my lower back which was cause by the sporting rifle disipline I did as a kid.

Every time I shoot kneeling I put my back out now, which results is a week off work plus hundreds of dollars in pysio bills.

Shooting jackets, pants and boots are far cheaper in comparison to the medical bills and quality of life I have now with constant back problems

For our juniors sake and developing bodys, we can't go back to the archaic ways of the "good old days".

Barney

The shooting pants do give lower back support and I agree with your sentiments. Youngsters in particular shooting 3-P and air rifle do need lumbar protection and I head that under health and safety for sport, the ISSF have this issue to deal with.

I also agree with some of the other posts where it was suggested that the current clothing and rules should stay, but the clothing must not get any stiffer/thicker than we currently use. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

JSB

JSB

I agree, we dont need to be getting any thicker or stiffer, the current rules are perfectly fine, they just need to be policed better.

Barney wrote:I agree, we dont need to be getting any thicker or stiffer, the current rules are perfectly fine, they just need to be policed better.

I think that's what the ISSF seem to be suggesting as an interim measure in their Statement on Rifle Shooter Clothing.

I'll bet there will be some moaning when they start applying the rules as noted in points 3 & 4 of that statement.

jmkwyo wrote:What about all of the people who have pants? Do we eat the cost?

No. You use them in training, because:

they provide a lot of support for your back.

Alexander

Hemmers wrote:

Freepistol wrote:I'm in favor of lower scores without the supportive clothing.

It's not just about scores, there's a very real argument that the pants are important for lower back and lumbar support. Weightlifters wear belts to support and protect their lower backs from damage.

I'm guessing you shot on boxes, or ran the targets out and back on rails like air shooters do when electronics are not available.
These force a longer break, and depending on whether or not you have a gremlin to change your cards for you, can force a much greater break in position than the shooters get now, when the most they move is to put the rifle on the stativ to reload.

Shooters are carrying much lower weights, but for much longer and sustained periods. I know people who attribute lower back problems to shooting air rifle and 3P without trousers in their early years, and after several years realised the errors of their ways. Now they physically can't complete a course of fire without them.

Now, maybe shooting postures have developed on the basis people wear trousers and can get away with more - so when people develop positions that they should wear pants for (but don't) they damage their backs. Or they get set up incorrectly such that they load their spines poorly. The point is though, if you just take away pants and everyone carries on as they are, then everyone will have mullered discs inside 10 years.


The penguin walk thing is a joke. It's a fallacious non-argument the ISSF use to try and justify this proposal. Shooters don't walk like that because their movements are constrained by the gear. They walk like that to minimise how much they flex the soles of their boots, and to keep them as flat and stiff as possible (within the rules).
Now some might say ban the boots as well and make people wear trainers like the pistol shooters do, but whatever footwear people use, they will walk flat-footed to keep that chosen pair of shoes as flat as possible. Pistol shooters wear special flat-soled ankle trainers, but you don't see them jogging or walking normally in them. They swap them off as soon as they finish shooting in order to preserve their flatness.

You will never get rid of the penguin walk regardless of what tinkering you may do with the rules regarding pants and boots (unless you make a ruling that shooting footwear may only be worn on the firing point, and shooters are to change into street shoes as soon as they move back beyond the firing point).

Besides, have you ever looked at the track cyclists walking? They can't - their shoes have cleats on the sole, and they have to do their own funny walk because of it. If the IOC want athletes to walk normally and are going to pressure federations over it, they should ban cycling cleats as well - millions of people cycle everyday with bare pedals and no cleats or toe-clips, so clearly they're not necessary except that the sport has widely adopted them (as shooting has pants).

What about skiiers? They can't possibly flex their ankles in those boots. Why not make them strap normal shoes to their skis? They'll have to go slower, but isn't what this whole discussion is leading to? We'll take lower scores in favour of shedding specialist gear. Body armour is worn for all manner of sports - pants are arguably similar in their role to protect long-term spinal health. We've already mentioned back supports for weight-lifters which allow them to lift weights greater than that which they might safely be able to do otherwise. The list goes on.
What's special about shooting that the kit needs to be stripped back? Freepistol is the first shooter I've heard from with any sort of support for these proposals. Everyone else I've spoken to, or read opinions from on the web has been firmly against it, and the counter-movement has after all got heavyweight support like Rajmond Debevic who leaked it in the first place.


Please also bear in mind these proposals come from a committee chaired by an individual on record as saying all materials for jackets should be banned except for leather. Including canvas, which pretty much every jacket includes to some extent! He basically wants us all to revert to how he shot back in the 1970s.
Well here's some news. Technology marches on, and whilst it's topical to limit or prevent arms races take place (as has happened in swimming), meddling for meddling's sake is unwelcome.
As long as materials pas EC for flexibility, thickness, etc, where's the issue? Does it matter if it's leather, canvas or a synthetic rubber? As long as it's flexible enough it shouldn't provide undue/unfair support.

The "they provide artificial support" argument doesn't really add up either. Jackets provide support as do slings, but they've been used since before living memory. They may have developed a bit from buttoning the 2-point sling into an epaulet on your tunic shoulder, but the principle remains the same - people modifying their clothes and equipment to improve their aim.

Freepistol wrote:Our scores were considerable lower (well, at least mine were) than they are today. I was told in the 90s that the clothing was the reason for the increase in scores because of the "exoskeleton" support.

If I may be so bold, I think you may find advances in rifle and ammunition technology have as much to answer for as the clothing, but you're not suggesting we all restrict ourselves to 1970s rifles are you?
Improvements in production techniques, CAD/CAM, and the growth of batch testing to match the gun and ammo mean the gun/ammo combinations are more accurate than ever before and get higher scores from the bench even on newer, smaller targets.

You are right, Hemmers, I shot with paper targets, and, outdoors we had to walk 100 yds. between 20 shot stages. I was aware there was concern of back injury and I switched to a less hip-slung position which was supposed to be safer, however, I quit shooting SB rifle in the mid 80s when we had kids. I never had any experience with pants and only know what was told to me by my shooting friends when I asked why scores improved. I always thought my Anschutz rifle was accurate enough as I used it to shoot outdoor prone and it would group inside the x-ring at 50 and 100 yds. on the NRA target.

No, I would never suggest going back to 70s rifles. I love the look of the aluminum stocks with all the adjustments and would consider getting one for my Winchester 52C if it was available. No matter how accurate the rifle, the shooter has to know how to use it.

You are also correct in that I don't have a dog in the fight, presently. My opinion is that there should be more shooter talent required like in the past. If the pants are used to prevent back problems, than perhaps a belt like the weightlifters use would be more beneficial. After all, weightlifters throw around the weight of our rifles like I pick up a slice of bread {or a cookie based on my waist size}. I'd like to shoot some position matches like I did in my younger days, but I'd hate to buy pants for it.

Comparing bicycle shoes with cleats to shooting pants isn't fair. Stiff soled shoes are necessary to keep the feet from going numb and the cleats are used to pull up on the pedal. I would guess ski boots help prevent broken ankles.

In any case, my opinion isn't as valid as current competitors. I shoot free pistol where all the pistols are accurate enough to hold the 10 ring.
Ben

To the person who said you can't wear jeans when you shoot... that is incorrect...You cannot wear jeans under shooting pants.

All back issues and money issues aside (because you can pick up a complete set of 'leathers' for under $400), and usually for juniors a lot of clubs provide the equipment. I started without leathers and eventually when I earned my way on to a college team I was given pants and other more advanced equipment. I have no problems shooting without pants, but to be honest I would rather shoot a consistent 9 or 10 with pants ,than I would a larger hold w/out pants. I enjoy training w/o pants to work on my hold, but pants make the sport more enjoyable for me and many other shooters out there.