Proposed New Clothing Regulations
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Proposed New Clothing Regulations
What are the odds that all the new clothing regulations will be approved? A dealer in the US said that if ISSF adopts all or most of the clothing rule he will quit selling shooting cloths as he can't afford to get stuck with expensive inventory because the ISSF is trying reverse a problem they have been ignoring all these years. I would also add that in these economic hard times now is not the time to be making drastic changes to the clothing.
Last edited by randy1952 on Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Trooperjake
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
-
Trooperjake
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
That draft, which is the latest one I have seen "in the wild", is now 10 months old.
Are we certain that there have been no further changes.
Although I am more interested in pistol, I have now come to the conclusion that we might as well wait until we see the actual rules before discussing what might or might not happen.
Are we certain that there have been no further changes.
Although I am more interested in pistol, I have now come to the conclusion that we might as well wait until we see the actual rules before discussing what might or might not happen.
-
westerngriz
What's certain is that the rule changes will have been discussed at least a few times in closed meetings and hence this version is unlikely to be what comes out. As I understand it the proposals of the various technical committees can still be amended up to and including sign off by the ISSF president. I'd personally wait and see what is published before reacting to them.David Levene wrote:That draft, which is the latest one I have seen "in the wild", is now 10 months old.
Are we certain that there have been no further changes.
Although I am more interested in pistol, I have now come to the conclusion that we might as well wait until we see the actual rules before discussing what might or might not happen.
Rob.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
That's been in since at least 2001, and means exactly that.jhmartin wrote:What is this supposed to mean? (In 50m rifle section)
7.4.3.4 More than one (1) rifle or parts of a rifle may be used.
That you can can use different rifles in different positions???
That's the way I read it ... and then why??
I realize this is old, but the only thing I could find.
I'm certain discussions are being held to do away with any clothing offering "artificial support", as it has been for about the past twelve years.
The old pants I first remember (early 1960's) were simple canvas pants a size or two larger than the normal to be slipped over the normal pants. Teh "shooting pants" had a rubber mat on the butt and one knee, to protect from getting soaking wet when shooting outside on dewy or wet ranges. they offered NO support. Likewise the old jackets were thin material, hanging loosely with elbow pads and a pad for the sling. Prevention of contusions was the idea and No support was offered by the jackets.
Today no one can argue that the pants and jacket do not offer support. If your back muscles are too weak to shoot without such support perhaps you need a training program, or to look into paralympic shooting.
After many years of back problems I began an exercise program, about 20 years ago) which rid me of 90% or more of the problems. I've never used shooting pants, and three years ago hung up my jacket for the last time. I have added four additional core exercises (6 minutes or so a day) and continue to have no back problems from shooting. Yes, my scores have dropped, but are slowly coming back. They will never get to where they once were, but that is more due to eyes and reduced training time as I've aged. I doubt anyone can shoot as well at 66 as they did at 26.
My goal is to still shoot safely, and somewhat decently at 96.
I'm certain discussions are being held to do away with any clothing offering "artificial support", as it has been for about the past twelve years.
The old pants I first remember (early 1960's) were simple canvas pants a size or two larger than the normal to be slipped over the normal pants. Teh "shooting pants" had a rubber mat on the butt and one knee, to protect from getting soaking wet when shooting outside on dewy or wet ranges. they offered NO support. Likewise the old jackets were thin material, hanging loosely with elbow pads and a pad for the sling. Prevention of contusions was the idea and No support was offered by the jackets.
Today no one can argue that the pants and jacket do not offer support. If your back muscles are too weak to shoot without such support perhaps you need a training program, or to look into paralympic shooting.
After many years of back problems I began an exercise program, about 20 years ago) which rid me of 90% or more of the problems. I've never used shooting pants, and three years ago hung up my jacket for the last time. I have added four additional core exercises (6 minutes or so a day) and continue to have no back problems from shooting. Yes, my scores have dropped, but are slowly coming back. They will never get to where they once were, but that is more due to eyes and reduced training time as I've aged. I doubt anyone can shoot as well at 66 as they did at 26.
My goal is to still shoot safely, and somewhat decently at 96.
Not being a rifle shooter, I’ve always wondered why rifle men were so ‘wrapped’ up. I understand that in prone the wear and tear justifies solid clothing, but on Air Rifle??One of my club members told me that with his shooting jacket and pants, he felt when his shooting position was OK. Is it really a ‘help’ in shooting? And what to think about the 400 max . score in many WC or Olympic events, plus another series of 10++ in the finals?
Maybe ISSF should do something about these artificial supports, rather then ‘control' the stiffness of the soles of pistol shooter.
Just my opinion.
Maybe ISSF should do something about these artificial supports, rather then ‘control' the stiffness of the soles of pistol shooter.
Just my opinion.
It's a bit hard to read criticism of the ISSF jacket and pants when you know that the normal NRA jackets wouldn't stand a chance of passing ISSF equipment control because they're too restrictive ;)
As to core exercise being all you need, it's great to do core exercises...
...and the day that you *have* to do them to shoot safely (whatever about shooting well) is the day our sport dies on its feet. Any sport that requires you to do a lot of physical training just to be able to try it safely is not one that will survive in the modern world. Would you let your child try a sport that put them at risk of chronic injury unless they spent time in a gym and had excellent form despite only being a beginner?
The trousers are there for a damn good reason. Taking them away should likewise have a damn good reason. And right now, that damn good reason is absent. Removing the trousers won't get us more of a TV audience. Sponsors will not suddenly flock to our sport to fund matches because everyone drops their trousers (though reporting it like that might get us a mention in the giggle page during a slow news cycle, or a seriously dodgy report if it's a junior's match).
If the objective is increased interest from non-shooters, we don't have to change the sport; we have to change how the sport is presented.
Seriously, go to the ISSF youtube channel and look at a world cup finals from a few years ago, with the minimal graphics, the flat commentating, the dry tone; and contrast that with any of the finals from London. It's the difference between something being of technical interest for those active in the sport; and 1500 screaming fans cheering on the shooters. And all that changed was presentation. Decent graphics showing more of what was going on to the spectators, and a commentator who could work the crowd.
In my honest opinion, if we invested in that commentator, we'd get a lot more bang for our buck than we would from any rules change...
As to core exercise being all you need, it's great to do core exercises...
...and the day that you *have* to do them to shoot safely (whatever about shooting well) is the day our sport dies on its feet. Any sport that requires you to do a lot of physical training just to be able to try it safely is not one that will survive in the modern world. Would you let your child try a sport that put them at risk of chronic injury unless they spent time in a gym and had excellent form despite only being a beginner?
The trousers are there for a damn good reason. Taking them away should likewise have a damn good reason. And right now, that damn good reason is absent. Removing the trousers won't get us more of a TV audience. Sponsors will not suddenly flock to our sport to fund matches because everyone drops their trousers (though reporting it like that might get us a mention in the giggle page during a slow news cycle, or a seriously dodgy report if it's a junior's match).
If the objective is increased interest from non-shooters, we don't have to change the sport; we have to change how the sport is presented.
Seriously, go to the ISSF youtube channel and look at a world cup finals from a few years ago, with the minimal graphics, the flat commentating, the dry tone; and contrast that with any of the finals from London. It's the difference between something being of technical interest for those active in the sport; and 1500 screaming fans cheering on the shooters. And all that changed was presentation. Decent graphics showing more of what was going on to the spectators, and a commentator who could work the crowd.
In my honest opinion, if we invested in that commentator, we'd get a lot more bang for our buck than we would from any rules change...
Sparks.. how many kids play football (American or rest-of-world, your pick), how about baseball, basketball, field hockey, gymnastics, etc... ALL of those sports put children in the line of injury, and parents flock to enroll their children. And one doesn't need to exercise to shoot safely, it's just a smart thing for shooters to do (just like every other sport)
But that's missing the point. You just hit a 0 with your aim on the reasoning. Any sport where competitors are maxing out the scoring system is too easy. It has nothing to do with the number of spectators, how 'entertaining' it is or anything past upping the bar to bring the challenge back. It's part of the reason I switched to pistol shooting, because it's not a common occurrence to shoot "perfect" scores. How many potential rifle shooters aren't getting into the sport because they think to themselves "why bother, you have to shoot a perfect 600 AR to to make the finals and that's too hard for me as a new shooter"
Anyway, as a pistol shooter I can just sit back and laugh at the whining about this particular topic. It's fun to see the complaints and excuses coming out. :D
But that's missing the point. You just hit a 0 with your aim on the reasoning. Any sport where competitors are maxing out the scoring system is too easy. It has nothing to do with the number of spectators, how 'entertaining' it is or anything past upping the bar to bring the challenge back. It's part of the reason I switched to pistol shooting, because it's not a common occurrence to shoot "perfect" scores. How many potential rifle shooters aren't getting into the sport because they think to themselves "why bother, you have to shoot a perfect 600 AR to to make the finals and that's too hard for me as a new shooter"
Anyway, as a pistol shooter I can just sit back and laugh at the whining about this particular topic. It's fun to see the complaints and excuses coming out. :D
Plus you don't have to carry as much crap and girth your loins in stiff hot canvas and leather when its 100 degrees and 100% humidity.
One issue with the rifle clothing from a support medical necessity issue. Some shooters have adopted extreme positions, because they can with the clothing support.
In the end there will be a big hew and cry, but they'll move on and adapt to whatever the new rules are. What ever they do it would be nice if they at least stick to they for some period of time, the death of clothing by a 1000 cuts is irritating and doesn't help the matter.
One issue with the rifle clothing from a support medical necessity issue. Some shooters have adopted extreme positions, because they can with the clothing support.
In the end there will be a big hew and cry, but they'll move on and adapt to whatever the new rules are. What ever they do it would be nice if they at least stick to they for some period of time, the death of clothing by a 1000 cuts is irritating and doesn't help the matter.
Actually, none of those sports put children in the line of injury.Brian M wrote:Sparks.. how many kids play football (American or rest-of-world, your pick), how about baseball, basketball, field hockey, gymnastics, etc... ALL of those sports put children in the line of injury, and parents flock to enroll their children.
All of those sports have rules, referees and safety equipment precisely to avoid injury. Which is what the clothing in rifle shooting is there for.
Now, if every kid was being pushed into bare-knuckle no-referee cage fighting, you'd have a point...
You would in rifle shooting without the clothing. No problem for the elite international athletes whose job (basicly) is shooting. For the 12-year-old gangly kid who's never been good at any other sport but who's our next Campriani or Emmons... it's not quite so good.And one doesn't need to exercise to shoot safely, it's just a smart thing for shooters to do (just like every other sport)
Really? I see a whole mess of people running 100m in less than 10 seconds these days. I don't think that means running has gotten too easy for the rest of us, it's just that the top 0.01% of runners have gotten much much better at training.But that's missing the point. You just hit a 0 with your aim on the reasoning. Any sport where competitors are maxing out the scoring system is too easy.
I can see it in my own country here. When I started shooting, breaking 500 in air rifle was this big deal in Ireland. If you managed it, you were one of the best shooters in the country. Today, a newbie who never saw a firearm before can be breaking 500 inside of a month or two, like it was no big thing.
It's not because the rifles have gotten better (I know this because they're shooting with the rifle I started shooting with, that being the nature of the lifetime of equipment in college clubs). The targets have gone from paper to electronic, but that doesn't change much, and the electronics didn't show up until after the 500 barrier went away anyway. We see more trousers on the line today (we didn't have them in my early days and that's why I can't feel anything on the outer half of my right thigh - permanent nerve damage from shooting in a position I didn't know was too extreme), but that's not what caused the shift. The cause was a change in how we trained - we got good coaches trained up domestically, they trained others and the standard shot up like a rocket.
The scores in world cups are, in my honest opinion, just an extreme version of that. You gain a point or two here and there from gimmicks (and lose points just as often), but the core of the change comes from better (not more, but better) training.
If so, that's a damn good reason not to do it.It has nothing to do with the number of spectators, how 'entertaining' it is or anything past upping the bar to bring the challenge back.
If a professional target shooter, one who has all the hours in a day to train, has hit the limit of the sport, that means nothing to amateurs like me and others who don't have the luxury of that kind of dedication.
When we're seeing shoot-offs from 600 to get into the finals, you'll have a point :D
Outside of prone rifle (where the greatest shooter in the world uses kit that's older than most junior shooters, thus negating the equipment argument anyway), not many.How many potential rifle shooters aren't getting into the sport because they think to themselves "why bother, you have to shoot a perfect 600 AR to to make the finals and that's too hard for me as a new shooter"
That's okay, we all laughed at the .22short-v-.22lr debate when you weren't looking ;) :DAnyway, as a pistol shooter I can just sit back and laugh at the whining about this particular topic. It's fun to see the complaints and excuses coming out. :D