ISSF rule change from 1st January 2013

[Richard H]

Here's one answer to the ISSF, my new Hoyt Vantage Elite Pro.

[j-team]

Sparks and Richard, you should re-read my post. I made no mention of "dumbing down" the firarms just suggested that you get rid of the supportive clothing (the by product of that would probably be lighter rifles).

And, for the record, IPSC biggest growth area is production class. A division where only basic pistols are allowed. No optic or compensators, only an unmodified pistol from an approved list.

[BenEnglishTX]

As for which shooting sports seem to be doing better participation wise, it would seem that IPSC has been growing where international is contracting and IPSC seems to embrace technology. Hate to tell you technology is what attracts some people especially young to the sport.

Interestingly, IPSC seems to be growing and maturing except in the place it was born. In the U.S., IPSC has lost ground to other organizations that stress simpler and cheaper equipment and courses of fire more closely resembling what might be used in a real self-defense situation. Yes, even with their open-class pistols straight off the set of a Star Wars movie, IPSC is still viable and reasonably popular but organizations like the IDPA and USPSA are supplanting it in the U.S.

I've been told that even PPC has a solid footing in parts of Europe despite the fact that it's all but dead in the U.S.

The last time I saw a shooting sport grow quickly and establish a firm base of shooters while simultaneously keeping the equipment simple was IHMSA-sanctioned pistol silhouette in the U.S. As soon as it got popular enough (and it exploded in the late 1970s, going from zero to thousands of active competitors in just a couple of years), the equipment races started and suddenly the big winners were using pistols that costs thousands, in advance, and had delivery times measured in years. Add to that some incompetent management in the early days (if anyone objects to that statement, PM me and I'll explain privately) and the sport withered on the vine.

Rifles or pistols, I have no objection to trying to make shooting sports more affordable and thus more accessible by mandating simpler equipment. But as far as I can tell, these changes aren't intended to accomplish any of that, are they?

[muffo as guest]

Sparks and Richard, you should re-read my post. I made no mention of "dumbing down" the firarms just suggested that you get rid of the supportive clothing (the by product of that would probably be lighter rifles).

And, for the record, IPSC biggest growth area is production class. A division where only basic pistols are allowed. No optic or compensators, only an unmodified pistol from an approved list.

Couldn't agree more on getting rid of supportive clothing. If they did that I'd go and buy a rifle tomorrow and shoot both 50m rifle and 3p

[Sparks]

A division where only basic pistols are allowed. No optic or compensators, only an unmodified pistol from an approved list.

...an unmodified example of advances in materials science, manufacturing and engineering, and years of innovation and evolution.

Which is a pretty good description of an ISSF rifle. Or any other firearm meant for any other sport, for that matter. Progress in firearms is not made up solely of obvious tweaks to stocks or accessories. Just because you're using it out of the box doesn't mean it's in some way low-tech!

Couldn't agree more on getting rid of supportive clothing. If they did that I'd go and buy a rifle tomorrow and shoot both 50m rifle and 3p

And a few weeks later, you'd start noticing the twinges in your lower back. Maybe a few more creaks here and there. Maybe you'd start to notice the numbness before it became permanent, maybe not. Maybe you'd get lucky and not be in an awkward position and escape the nerve damage, but unless you were shooting prone only, I doubt it.

There's a reason for the jackets and trousers - they prevent chronic injury. And it's not just ISSF that use them, don't forget; most rifle disciplines use them; or else have a very short course of fire with other difficulties to make up for the short course of fire (like with biathlon or modern penthathlon).

[Pat McCoy]

There's a reason for the jackets and trousers - they prevent chronic injury.

And how do they do this? By giving artificial support to the athlete?

[RobStubbs]

Couldn't agree more on getting rid of supportive clothing. If they did that I'd go and buy a rifle tomorrow and shoot both 50m rifle and 3p

To be fair, you don't have to use any of the clothing, it's all optional.

There's a reason for the jackets and trousers - they prevent chronic injury.

And how do they do this? By giving artificial support to the athlete?

Pat - not sure what your point is. There's been shooting clothing in ISSF shooting for ever - are you suggesting the ISSF should ban it all ?

Rob.

[jhmartin]

And how do they do this? By giving artificial support to the athlete?

Let's go ahead and take it a step further. A sling is artificial support. LET'S BAN SLINGS.

The kneeling roll is there to prevent ankle injuries by artificially supporting the ankle. LET'S BAN KNEELING ROLLS

The glove is there to artificially protect the hand. LET'S BAN GLOVES.

You (well, "we" really) poor genetically defective folks that wear glasses to artificially allow you to see better. LET'S BAN GLASSES & CONTACTS

How far do you want to take it? There is nothing wrong in my mind with a bit of support/protection to prevent injury. Pants and jackets that stand up by themselves or where they have to lift some one into them ... yeah, OK ... the stiffness and flexibility rules deal with that. Without that little bit of support, I fear many coaches and shooters will go back to a twist to steady the rifle. That type of position lead to a lot of back issues, especially with still growing/developing youth

Shoes/Boots ... flexibility tests are OK there, but as someone mentioned folks walk funny in them to basically make them last longer ... you can walk normally in them, but you wear out a couple hundred dollars faster.

[muffo as guest]

A division where only basic pistols are allowed. No optic or compensators, only an unmodified pistol from an approved list.

...an unmodified example of advances in materials science, manufacturing and engineering, and years of innovation and evolution.

Which is a pretty good description of an ISSF rifle. Or any other firearm meant for any other sport, for that matter. Progress in firearms is not made up solely of obvious tweaks to stocks or accessories. Just because you're using it out of the box doesn't mean it's in some way low-tech!

Couldn't agree more on getting rid of supportive clothing. If they did that I'd go and buy a rifle tomorrow and shoot both 50m rifle and 3p

And a few weeks later, you'd start noticing the twinges in your lower back. Maybe a few more creaks here and there. Maybe you'd start to notice the numbness before it became permanent, maybe not. Maybe you'd get lucky and not be in an awkward position and escape the nerve damage, but unless you were shooting prone only, I doubt it.

There's a reason for the jackets and trousers - they prevent chronic injury. And it's not just ISSF that use them, don't forget; most rifle disciplines use them; or else have a very short course of fire with other difficulties to make up for the short course of fire (like with biathlon or modern penthathlon).

Easily fixed. Reduce the max wright of the rifles. We don't use 5 kilo free pistols because we can't hold it without support. Its funny how I can shoot all these positions for Q0 hours a day for a month straight and not be sore in any way without using and supportive clothing when using s 4 kilo rifle

[Woody4]

Easily fixed. Reduce the max wright of the rifles. We don't use 5 kilo free pistols because we can't hold it without support. Its funny how I can shoot all these positions for Q0 hours a day for a month straight and not be sore in any way without using and supportive clothing when using s 4 kilo rifle

We can hold them no worries. If I did as you suggested without shooting pants (which provide lower back support), I'd end up a slave to my Physio. It's not that we can't shoot without them (we can hit the middle without gear) but that we would prefer to not develop chronic injuries.

There is nothing to say that a person MUST use a rifle at the weight limit. And as a person who is tiny (5ft, 45kgs) it won't matter what the weight is, I will need protective/supportive gear.

[Muffo]

Easily fixed. Reduce the max wright of the rifles. We don't use 5 kilo free pistols because we can't hold it without support. Its funny how I can shoot all these positions for Q0 hours a day for a month straight and not be sore in any way without using and supportive clothing when using s 4 kilo rifle

We can hold them no worries. If I did as you suggested without shooting pants (which provide lower back support), I'd end up a slave to my Physio. It's not that we can't shoot without them (we can hit the middle without gear) but that we would prefer to not develop chronic injuries.

There is nothing to say that a person MUST use a rifle at the weight limit. And as a person who is tiny (5ft, 45kgs) it won't matter what the weight is, I will need protective/supportive gear.

Yes you would become a slave to your physio because the rifles are to heavy because you can have supportive gear to counter act this. there is nothing to say a person Must use a rifle at the weight limit or that they have to use the supportive gear but you would be stupid not to. If you want to be competitive you have to use the rules to your advantage its not a problem with what you dont have to do its a problem with the rules

[Woody4]

I don't think I said it properly.

Even with a much lighter rifle we would still be prone to injury without gear. I don't know of any shooter who says "I'm going to get the heaviest rifle I can find, even if I can't lift it, because I have all this gear so I won't notice it". My rifle is not too heavy (for me).



Anyways, the current proposed rules don't even talk about doing away with gear, so not a problem I have to deal with.

[j-team]

...It's not that we can't shoot without them (we can hit the middle without gear)...

Ha Ha Ha. I wish we were standing on a shooting range together when you made that claim as I would ask you to prove it.

Honestly, this constant claim that the clothing is to prevent injuries is rubbish. The clothing is there to help you stand/kneel or lie stiller and shoot higher scores, that's why the ISSF has to test for stiffness, thickness etc.

[ZD]

Honestly I feel that this rifle shooter vs pistol argument is beginning to get out of hand. While I can understand pistol shooters poking fun out our outfits and gear (some posts seem to have gone beyond this, this goes for both parties), I feel that there are more constructive comments towards this subject. The rifle shooter vs pistol debate is not relevant at the moment. Besides, they're coming for us and they might come for you afterwards. Over time, shooting has advanced technologically. I understand the concerns towards this, but this is the system that has come about, changing at this point seems too late in the game. I feel that many of us our angry about the possible ISSF decisions not only due to the possible financial implications, but also due to the fact that these proposals have appeared to have been made without any input. Yes, I am angry about potentially having to modify gear. However, worse still is the fact that these proposals seem to be made without much logic and without are input, in supposed attempts to make shooting popular on television. Sorry, but I don't see that happening any time soon. If shooting is to become more spectator friendly, then the spectators will have to become more educated about shooting. Lets not appeal to someone simply flipping channels on television. There is a passage in Ways of the Rifle that talks about how a tennis match has only two players but tens of thousands of spectators, and yet rifle has less fans but more participants. Personally, I would rather see it stay this way.

[Pat McCoy]

jhmartin:

The current jackets and pants support the shooter.

Slings and gloves do not give any support to the shooter, but may (sling) support the rifle, which is OK. Gloves are way thicker than needed to prevent pinching. A batting or golf glove will stop slipping from perspiration, and if too thin one can go to a leather work glove (perhaps with thin lining), as found at most hardware stores. Cheap and effective. Often free because the fingers on the primary use hand (right for most) wear out, and left gloves are lurking all over.

I'll have to think about kneeling rolls.

How about just changing the pants and jacket thickness back to the old NRA style, but with much thinner pads for elbows, knees, and slings. No artificial support, just protection from undue "wear" to elbows and knees from abrasion.

I hung up my heavy jacket, glove, and shooting boots (never had special pants), several years ago for tennis shoes, and a work glove. Lightweight shirt depends on temperature, but usually sinlge flannel shirt over a t-shirt.

I had "back problems" for over 25 years, then learned about proper fitness and core strength. Have had NO back problems in past 15 years ,
including last three years shooting air rifle postal, silhouette postal, and light rifle postal, and Schuetzen postal (shooting four times a week offhand). I also shoot air pistol postal, so add another day standing.

Yes my score dropped without the extra support, but are slowly coming back to near where I was, even with beginning of a cataract. Seeing is a far bigger challenge than standing and holding the rifle.

Those who complain about the cost of shooting clothing should welcome the removal of it in favor of "street clothes" it seems to me.

[Guest]

I don't think I said it properly.

Even with a much lighter rifle we would still be prone to injury without gear. I don't know of any shooter who says "I'm going to get the heaviest rifle I can find, even if I can't lift it, because I have all this gear so I won't notice it". My rifle is not too heavy (for me).



Anyways, the current proposed rules don't even talk about doing away with gear, so not a problem I have to deal with.

So your saying your body isn't up to the task. My mother isn't bake to shoot pistol any more because of a crook back, by this logic she should be able to use supportive gear to help her. You are right banning shooting jackets is not on the cards I was just saying I wish it was because it's the one thing that keeps me out of the sport

[Woody4]

Ha Ha Ha. I wish we were standing on a shooting range together when you made that claim as I would ask you to prove it.

He he. Me too :P



Anyway, moving on. I'm not sure the discussion needs to delve into the realm of personal attacks.



I'm very keen to see the final copy of the rules when they do come out, particularly some clarification on the vibration stuff for rifles, although judging by some previous comments I think we can guess kind of where they are heading.

I wonder if there will be a grace-period for equipment change over? It will be interesting to see how manufacturers of equipment will deal with the changes (and how quickly). I know Kurt Thune have already made mention of doing repairs for recently bought jackets/pants.

I'm not quite sure the ISSF have moved in the right direction in regards to what they say they want (increased viewers). I think the new finals format may be temporarily interesting, just because it is different and new. I'm not sure it would convince any of my non-shooting friends to come and watch though.
I also reckon they might have had some more success if they hadn't changed so many things all at once. It's already been said, people don't really welcome changes with open arms, but even less so when there are so many of them.

Now we just get to sit and wait (and speculate) until they release the final copy I suppose...

[RobStubbs]

Honestly I feel that this rifle shooter vs pistol argument is beginning to get out of hand. While I can understand pistol shooters poking fun out our outfits and gear (some posts seem to have gone beyond this, this goes for both parties), I feel that there are more constructive comments towards this subject. The rifle shooter vs pistol debate is not relevant at the moment. Besides, they're coming for us and they might come for you afterwards.

I think you're missreading what folks have been posting. I don't see any pistol shooters slagging off rifle or vice versa. You may, or may not, recall that rapid fire pistol had a huge change in that the guns were changed, only a few years ago. So pistol shooters had to discard their 22 short guns and buy new 22LR pistols. So to suggest it's rifle always getting picked on is untrue.

The ISSF would appear to want shooters to shoot in tracksuits (as pistol shooters essentially do) to promote the image of shooting as a sporting pursuit. You only have to have seen the clothing rules over the last couple of years. If they want to go down that route they really need to involve the member federations and canvas opinion, and be open in discussions. It will also take many years to evolve (or devolve) into such an event. I personally dont think such an approach is required or a good idea. Clothing support is used in numerous events for protection from self injury or protection from the opposition.

So I think the ISSF would do well laying its cards on the table so everyone knows what they are driving towards and shooters, coaches and governing bodies can have some properly informed discussions.

Rob.

[robf]

A division where only basic pistols are allowed. No optic or compensators, only an unmodified pistol from an approved list.

...an unmodified example of advances in materials science, manufacturing and engineering, and years of innovation and evolution.

Which is a pretty good description of an ISSF rifle. Or any other firearm meant for any other sport, for that matter. Progress in firearms is not made up solely of obvious tweaks to stocks or accessories. Just because you're using it out of the box doesn't mean it's in some way low-tech!

Couldn't agree more on getting rid of supportive clothing. If they did that I'd go and buy a rifle tomorrow and shoot both 50m rifle and 3p

And a few weeks later, you'd start noticing the twinges in your lower back. Maybe a few more creaks here and there. Maybe you'd start to notice the numbness before it became permanent, maybe not. Maybe you'd get lucky and not be in an awkward position and escape the nerve damage, but unless you were shooting prone only, I doubt it.

There's a reason for the jackets and trousers - they prevent chronic injury. And it's not just ISSF that use them, don't forget; most rifle disciplines use them; or else have a very short course of fire with other difficulties to make up for the short course of fire (like with biathlon or modern penthathlon).

We've been here before. Where is the evidence to suggest that clothing prevents injury or shooting causes it?

You can't ban something till you define it. The whole reason why clothing and the rules are the way they are is because technology is being used to explore the limits and loopholes in the rules. Just like it is in every other international sport. Badly worded rules do nothing to help. The ISSF's rules are so open for abuse it's not funny. In other areas, all rifles to date are illegal if you take the existing rules in their existing state.

[BenEnglishTX]

If shooting is to become more spectator friendly, then the spectators will have to become more educated about shooting.

That's essentially impossible. While a good announcer can make great strides toward that goal (We saw it in London.), a good announcer can only help a particular contest be a bit more watchable for those who are already at least a little interested. That's not enough.

As an alternative to educated spectators, a group that will always be so small that the Olympic marketing machine will never think of them as anything other than a meaningless statistical blip, you can simplify and dumb down the sport until anyone with absolutely no knowledge of shooting can easily see and understand what's happening on the range with their naked eye. Such a course is possible; biathlon achieves that goal. Doing so would require no rule changes to the current rifle sports shot at the Olympics. They could continue to be shot under the same rules by anyone who cares to participate; they would simply be removed from the Olympics. After that, a new rifle sport would have to be created from whole cloth, probably something that requires semi-automatic rifles fired from standing at high speed on targets that react/fall over/shatter. If the ISSF truly wants to make rifle (and pistol, too) sports "spectator-friendly", they'll need to go that route.

Plenty of variations on that theme already exist so it's certainly possible. However, I can't think of a single serious shooter, rifle, pistol, or otherwise, who would not grievously mourn the passing of traditional marksmanship from the Olympics. I doubt even the ISSF, as divorced as everyone seems to believe they are from the everyday competitor, is so completely disconnected from tradition that they would propose such a radical course.

Lets not appeal to someone simply flipping channels on television.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Olympic sports stay in the Olympics either because they already have massive followings (which isn't any guarantee; american football isn't in the Olympics even though it would guarantee killer ratings for the Olympics in the U.S., for example) or because they appeal to completely ignorant viewers flipping channels on television.

How these or other possible rule changes are viewed really depends on whether we accept the premise that I just laid out - that only sports that grab channel-flippers will ultimately remain.

As I've said in other posts, someone please tell me that the ISSF and the IOC are still sufficiently dedicated to traditional ideals of excellence in sport and that I'm completely wrong. I would much prefer being wrong to being forced to accept that the Olympics (and, by extension, every sport that's included) must pander to the lowest common denominator in order to sell products because selling things is the true and ultimate purpose of the modern Olympics.

Someone please definitively refute me or I'm going to spend the rest of the day depressed.