No, oddly enough, I'm not talking about Barry Bonds vs. Hank Aaron (but I might as well be).
The topic on electronic triggers has morphed into a different (but related) set of intersting issues:
- What makes pistol shooting (AP, FP in particular) what it is?
- When would technology fundamentally change the sport?
Some of you might remember my position on this from 2 years ago- loudly and vociferously opposing the idea of making RF pistol an "air" event, as this would 1) fundamentally change the sport; and 2) lead inexorably to "no projectile at all" computer game events.
So here's the question- when would YOU think a technological advance alters the sport to the point where it is "no longer the same?"
Some of you obviously have a problem with electronic triggers (same guys who didn't cotton to the invention of smokeless powder either, I imagine).
Others of you might claim that replacing the whole thing with "demilled" recievers and Noptel systems would be o.k.
So- upon what basis do YOU accept/reject technological advancements? The development of rifled barrels? Replacing pellets with lasers?
Steve Swartz
Technology vs. Sport- Where do YOU draw the line?
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
Mark Briggs
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:35 am
- Location: The Frigid North - Ottawa, Canada
Hmmm, interesting topic, Steve. I'm certain it will stir great controversy as every shooter seems to hold a strong opinion on the subject. OK, OK, I'll weigh in with mine, for what little it's worth...
Here's what I feel consitutes the line in the sand beyond which ISSF pistol disciplines should not venture:
Sights: Keep 'em open, requiring shooter skill and concentration to align the three major sighting elements, rear sight, front sight and target. Any device which eliminates one or more of these elements should not be allowed (including red dots, holosights, etc), but excluding such sight alterations as fibreoptic sighting elements, as long as they continue to provide the shooter with the three traditional open-sight elements.
Pistols: Existing rules work so why change them?
Shooters Aids: Glasses with corrective lenses are OK, but glasses which provide any form of eye/head/neck/body alignment cues (ie laser references, spirit or other levels, etc) should not be. Side blinders should, in my opinion, be done away with completely, and non-sighting eye blinders should stay as they currently are. Current rules regulating stiffness of clothing are fine, but I think that rifle shooters should not be allowed the stiff clothing they currently wear as I feel it's gone waaaay over the line into technology. We've come to the point where if you don't have pants, jacket, boots and a glove then you stand no hope of being competitive. Let the rifle shooters use pistol-class clothing and you'll start to see the real measure of their shooting ability. (Ouch - I can already feel the stinging replies this comment will bring!!!!)
Projectile-Replacement Technology: Lasers, "virtual" projectiles, etc are training aids but not competition tools. No laser can be swayed by the wind like a bullet can. No 'virtual" pistol will recoil into the shooters hand and create group dispersion like a real one does. And how the heck does one cope with alibi's created by software glitches instead of a real misfire? Lead continues to be a grossly overblown risk element which can very handily be dealt with using good bullet traps and modern range design. Let's stick to shooting real bullets, propelled by real powder. Our current electronic scoring systems upped the technology ante, but they still hold a roll of paper which is the irrefuteable proof of a marksman's skill. Let's foray no further into the world of "virtual" targets.
So, I've now stood up and pronounced myself to be a complete Luddite. Well, not quite, since I think that electronic triggers are just fine, as are ergonomic grips and even fibreoptic sights. The essence of the sport remains in its physical challenges. A shooter must align the sights, squeeze the trigger just perfectly, cope with recoil, and have doped the wind just right in order to score well. Our pistol scores today are a fairly accurate reflection of shooter ability. Once a reasonable baseline of equipment is established, as we have today in the pistol sports, a shooter's ability still makes the difference between good scores and poor ones. And if you don't believe that statement then all you need to do is hand a good shooter a non-competitive gun and see what they do with it. I can assure you the scores of internationally-competitive shooters will not suffer very much from shooting an inferior pistol.
Here's what I feel consitutes the line in the sand beyond which ISSF pistol disciplines should not venture:
Sights: Keep 'em open, requiring shooter skill and concentration to align the three major sighting elements, rear sight, front sight and target. Any device which eliminates one or more of these elements should not be allowed (including red dots, holosights, etc), but excluding such sight alterations as fibreoptic sighting elements, as long as they continue to provide the shooter with the three traditional open-sight elements.
Pistols: Existing rules work so why change them?
Shooters Aids: Glasses with corrective lenses are OK, but glasses which provide any form of eye/head/neck/body alignment cues (ie laser references, spirit or other levels, etc) should not be. Side blinders should, in my opinion, be done away with completely, and non-sighting eye blinders should stay as they currently are. Current rules regulating stiffness of clothing are fine, but I think that rifle shooters should not be allowed the stiff clothing they currently wear as I feel it's gone waaaay over the line into technology. We've come to the point where if you don't have pants, jacket, boots and a glove then you stand no hope of being competitive. Let the rifle shooters use pistol-class clothing and you'll start to see the real measure of their shooting ability. (Ouch - I can already feel the stinging replies this comment will bring!!!!)
Projectile-Replacement Technology: Lasers, "virtual" projectiles, etc are training aids but not competition tools. No laser can be swayed by the wind like a bullet can. No 'virtual" pistol will recoil into the shooters hand and create group dispersion like a real one does. And how the heck does one cope with alibi's created by software glitches instead of a real misfire? Lead continues to be a grossly overblown risk element which can very handily be dealt with using good bullet traps and modern range design. Let's stick to shooting real bullets, propelled by real powder. Our current electronic scoring systems upped the technology ante, but they still hold a roll of paper which is the irrefuteable proof of a marksman's skill. Let's foray no further into the world of "virtual" targets.
So, I've now stood up and pronounced myself to be a complete Luddite. Well, not quite, since I think that electronic triggers are just fine, as are ergonomic grips and even fibreoptic sights. The essence of the sport remains in its physical challenges. A shooter must align the sights, squeeze the trigger just perfectly, cope with recoil, and have doped the wind just right in order to score well. Our pistol scores today are a fairly accurate reflection of shooter ability. Once a reasonable baseline of equipment is established, as we have today in the pistol sports, a shooter's ability still makes the difference between good scores and poor ones. And if you don't believe that statement then all you need to do is hand a good shooter a non-competitive gun and see what they do with it. I can assure you the scores of internationally-competitive shooters will not suffer very much from shooting an inferior pistol.
Steve,
In my opinion guns need to fire projectiles although I don't have a problem with the type (air or bullet), but hey I would say that since I'm allowed air in the UK ;-)
Open sights are best but I doubt the best shooters would fall by the wayside if another sighting technology became more popular (and allowed in ISSF events).
Rob.
In my opinion guns need to fire projectiles although I don't have a problem with the type (air or bullet), but hey I would say that since I'm allowed air in the UK ;-)
Open sights are best but I doubt the best shooters would fall by the wayside if another sighting technology became more popular (and allowed in ISSF events).
Rob.
Probably something about an 8.5kg offset asymmetrical load on the spinal column compared with pistol shooting :D The primary purpose of the jacket and trousers has to prevent chronic spinal injuries, not to ensure accuracy...Mark Briggs wrote:I think that rifle shooters should not be allowed the stiff clothing they currently wear as I feel it's gone waaaay over the line into technology. <snip> Let the rifle shooters use pistol-class clothing and you'll start to see the real measure of their shooting ability. (Ouch - I can already feel the stinging replies this comment will bring!!!!)
My view is as long as it removes a variable that the shooter has no or little control over it is a technological change to equipment and not really a performance enhancing improvement.
Example 1: A good electronic trigger just reduces the inherent variation that is found in mechanical trigger, this varitaion will be different even within the same gun models. So in essence it is actually leveling the pplaying field by removing variation which the shooter has little to no control over. You still have the same trigger weight and require good trigger control. This should be allowed as the competition is not meant to measure equipment against equipment but rather competitor against competitor.
Example 2: A new drug that steadies a shooter. This is now actually atrifically changing the athlete through artifical means (as opposed to training). This I would said shouldn't be allowed. As the concept is to measure athletes against one another.
Then there is the other arguement that if you let everything go you most like would also have a level playing field.
I also really don't beleive in denying peoplethe ability to compete because they require medicine that would actually just bring them up to a normal level ( I know it would be impossible to police).
Example 1: A good electronic trigger just reduces the inherent variation that is found in mechanical trigger, this varitaion will be different even within the same gun models. So in essence it is actually leveling the pplaying field by removing variation which the shooter has little to no control over. You still have the same trigger weight and require good trigger control. This should be allowed as the competition is not meant to measure equipment against equipment but rather competitor against competitor.
Example 2: A new drug that steadies a shooter. This is now actually atrifically changing the athlete through artifical means (as opposed to training). This I would said shouldn't be allowed. As the concept is to measure athletes against one another.
Then there is the other arguement that if you let everything go you most like would also have a level playing field.
I also really don't beleive in denying peoplethe ability to compete because they require medicine that would actually just bring them up to a normal level ( I know it would be impossible to police).
Exemptions are available for some of the banned drugs if really needed but also where exemptions aren't available it will only affect international class athletes. Most athletes aren't subject to drug testing (I'm sure that's the same there as here in the UK) and even when they are they can declare them.I also really don't beleive in denying peoplethe ability to compete because they require medicine that would actually just bring them up to a normal level ( I know it would be impossible to police).
Oops, fell off topic,
Rob.
-
Steve Swartz
Hmmm nobody willing to explicitly take on the issue of what inherently makes our sport a sport?
Richard hit on it with the notion of "changing/not changing things the shooter has no control over."
I agree the line drawn by that ciriteria would allow stuff that contributed to accuracy, reliability, etc. I think most of us would agree that those technologies would be ok, as they would not fundamentally change the nature of the sport.
However, something like a better trigger design- as Richard mentioned- would now become somewhat arguable.
Indeed, under the "changing/not changing things the shooter has no control over" criteria we could argue that the choice between a single stage and two stage trigger action represents a substantive encroachment on the physical task the shooter has to perform.
Well, if not "substantive encroachment" then at least "arguable point."
Does this discussion not necessarily lead to addressing the question of "What constitutes the skills for delivery of a shot?"
So how does the shot process actually work?
Once we define that, then we could use "Does/does not alter the shot process" as our criteria for what is allowed vs. not allowed technology?
Steve Swartz
Richard hit on it with the notion of "changing/not changing things the shooter has no control over."
I agree the line drawn by that ciriteria would allow stuff that contributed to accuracy, reliability, etc. I think most of us would agree that those technologies would be ok, as they would not fundamentally change the nature of the sport.
However, something like a better trigger design- as Richard mentioned- would now become somewhat arguable.
Indeed, under the "changing/not changing things the shooter has no control over" criteria we could argue that the choice between a single stage and two stage trigger action represents a substantive encroachment on the physical task the shooter has to perform.
Well, if not "substantive encroachment" then at least "arguable point."
Does this discussion not necessarily lead to addressing the question of "What constitutes the skills for delivery of a shot?"
So how does the shot process actually work?
Once we define that, then we could use "Does/does not alter the shot process" as our criteria for what is allowed vs. not allowed technology?
Steve Swartz
-
Dan Hankins
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:53 am
- Location: Southwest Missouri
Drawing the line
The line will be drawn when some technolocical alteration appears that gives the user such a clear advantage, not by speculation, but by actual performance, that the competitors who do nou take advantage of that technology can no longet be competitive.
At that time, or shoud that situation come about, there will be a line drawn. Perhaps a new classification will be made to accomodate the techies, and the others continue to shoot, or, the new technology becomes the norm. The shooters ultimately decide.
I don't think most shooters would care if someone used a remote devise to fire the pistol, say from the non holding hand, you push a button that sends a signal to the pistol to fire. BUT, if it became so that that shooter was winning every match, or even winning more often than not. Then it might be percieved that he/she had a devise that offered an unfair advantage. A line would be drawn. I think this has been done before, but I have no first hand knowledge, may be urban myth.
The Maker took humans out of the cosmic oven just a little too soon. He did not get the greed factor out of humans. Greed is not limited to money. Greed also seeks fame, power (real or percieved), and that magical feeling that comes with success in competition.
You can't factor out greed in any group of humans. Somehow it will show up in the best of the best groups. You can try to control greed in yourself and others, and that's about the best you can do. A group of competitors will make a decision as to the rules of competition, and you just hope and work with the group of like minded individuals toward the goal of the group.
Evolution of the sport is when all the interested parties agree to yse whatever technological advantages that are presented. Can you imagine being competitive in 10 m pistol with an FWB-65? While it may be possible, it will be the path less taken, because there are advantages to the ergonomic and technical advances in 10 pistols. But, if there were enough people with the FWB-65 that wanted to, and would participate in competition, they would have a class for that type of pistol.
I am done now.
Respectfully,
Bubba
At that time, or shoud that situation come about, there will be a line drawn. Perhaps a new classification will be made to accomodate the techies, and the others continue to shoot, or, the new technology becomes the norm. The shooters ultimately decide.
I don't think most shooters would care if someone used a remote devise to fire the pistol, say from the non holding hand, you push a button that sends a signal to the pistol to fire. BUT, if it became so that that shooter was winning every match, or even winning more often than not. Then it might be percieved that he/she had a devise that offered an unfair advantage. A line would be drawn. I think this has been done before, but I have no first hand knowledge, may be urban myth.
The Maker took humans out of the cosmic oven just a little too soon. He did not get the greed factor out of humans. Greed is not limited to money. Greed also seeks fame, power (real or percieved), and that magical feeling that comes with success in competition.
You can't factor out greed in any group of humans. Somehow it will show up in the best of the best groups. You can try to control greed in yourself and others, and that's about the best you can do. A group of competitors will make a decision as to the rules of competition, and you just hope and work with the group of like minded individuals toward the goal of the group.
Evolution of the sport is when all the interested parties agree to yse whatever technological advantages that are presented. Can you imagine being competitive in 10 m pistol with an FWB-65? While it may be possible, it will be the path less taken, because there are advantages to the ergonomic and technical advances in 10 pistols. But, if there were enough people with the FWB-65 that wanted to, and would participate in competition, they would have a class for that type of pistol.
I am done now.
Respectfully,
Bubba
I think Bubba has it about right. The ISSF (for their sanctioned events) constantly monitor shooting developments and make rule changes as required (some might say interfere too much). There will always be new developments that may give small advantages but anything dramatic will see other competitors either adopting it very quickly or calling for it to be banned. Look for example at the comments that were raised when the glove on the shooting hand presented itself to the rifle world.
I must admit I can't think of any developments that will rock the shooting world but maybe that's why I don't work in the field rather than an accurate prophesy.
Rob.
I must admit I can't think of any developments that will rock the shooting world but maybe that's why I don't work in the field rather than an accurate prophesy.
Rob.
-
Mark Briggs
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:35 am
- Location: The Frigid North - Ottawa, Canada
Sparks Wrote:
"Probably something about an 8.5kg offset asymmetrical load on the spinal column compared with pistol shooting :D The primary purpose of the jacket and trousers has to prevent chronic spinal injuries, not to ensure accuracy"
Well, I've been thinking about this statement quite a bit and I guess I'm missing something. I don't know any sport where a rifle shooter is supporting an 8.5kg rifle (that's 18 3/4 pounds!) in the standing position, but I'm not that familiar with rifle shooting. I know that I shoot my 3.5kg (or so, haven't weighed it) air rifle without wearing extra clothing. I guess what this whole arguement boils down to is that if an 8.5 kg rifle is required to produce competitive accuracy then perhaps we should be analyzing the competitive accuracy requirements and downgrading them so a shooter can be competitive with a rifle which may safely be supported by the human body whilst wearing "street" clothing. Essentially, lowering the maximum weight of the rifle will lower the stress on the body and eliminate the requirement for supportive clothing.
And if rifle shooters have difficulty supporting their rifles then they ought to try supporting a 1.3kg free pistol at arms length for the hundred or so raises required to complete a match. With no supporting clothing. No wonder pistol shooters suffer such high rates of shoulder injury. Perhaps we should petition the ISSF to allow pistol shooting jackets with a prop rod under the shooting arm? ;-)
Once again, I think that rifle shooting has evolved past the point where shooter skill is the single largest determining factor in competitive success. This is in my opinion a place where we need to examine the essence of the sport and eliminate those elements which are clearly equipment-dependant advantages.
"Probably something about an 8.5kg offset asymmetrical load on the spinal column compared with pistol shooting :D The primary purpose of the jacket and trousers has to prevent chronic spinal injuries, not to ensure accuracy"
Well, I've been thinking about this statement quite a bit and I guess I'm missing something. I don't know any sport where a rifle shooter is supporting an 8.5kg rifle (that's 18 3/4 pounds!) in the standing position, but I'm not that familiar with rifle shooting. I know that I shoot my 3.5kg (or so, haven't weighed it) air rifle without wearing extra clothing. I guess what this whole arguement boils down to is that if an 8.5 kg rifle is required to produce competitive accuracy then perhaps we should be analyzing the competitive accuracy requirements and downgrading them so a shooter can be competitive with a rifle which may safely be supported by the human body whilst wearing "street" clothing. Essentially, lowering the maximum weight of the rifle will lower the stress on the body and eliminate the requirement for supportive clothing.
And if rifle shooters have difficulty supporting their rifles then they ought to try supporting a 1.3kg free pistol at arms length for the hundred or so raises required to complete a match. With no supporting clothing. No wonder pistol shooters suffer such high rates of shoulder injury. Perhaps we should petition the ISSF to allow pistol shooting jackets with a prop rod under the shooting arm? ;-)
Once again, I think that rifle shooting has evolved past the point where shooter skill is the single largest determining factor in competitive success. This is in my opinion a place where we need to examine the essence of the sport and eliminate those elements which are clearly equipment-dependant advantages.
ISSF 50m 3-Position free rifle weight limit is 8.5 kg, 6.5 for ladies' 3-position sport rifle, 5.5 for air rifles.Mark Briggs wrote:Well, I've been thinking about this statement quite a bit and I guess I'm missing something. I don't know any sport where a rifle shooter is supporting an 8.5kg rifle (that's 18 3/4 pounds!) in the standing position, but I'm not that familiar with rifle shooting.
That compares to a maximum of 1.7kg for the olympic pistols (air pistol to be specific, assuming I'm remembering the numbers right).
But also reduce the accuracy - the heavy barrel on ISSF .22 rifles makes up a large portion of the weight, and the inertia the weight confers reduces "twitchiness".Essentially, lowering the maximum weight of the rifle will lower the stress on the body and eliminate the requirement for supportive clothing.
That depends on what you consider to be the defining component of "shooting skill". Me, I think it's control - not over the rifle, but over oneself, both mentally and physically. We may not run the fastest, jump the highest or lift the heaviest weight, but we do exhibit the most mental focus and control in the olympics.Once again, I think that rifle shooting has evolved past the point where shooter skill is the single largest determining factor in competitive success.
-
Tony C.
technology vs. sport
Mark, I have to respectfully disagree with you about rifle shooting has pass the point that shooting skill is the determining factor in wining matches. True, in rifle shooting, heavy jacket; pant; sling, etc. help the shooter produce a better score, however, equipment is only part of the story.
If I tell everyone I can ran a sub 10 sec. 100M race, all I need is a pair of running shoe they use in the Olympic track and field event, I'll become the biggest joke around, fact is, the only way for me to attain this kind of velocity is to strap 2 rocket engine onto my butt.
I'm sure you have seen, or done it yourself, shooter with less than top notch equipment beat someone else armed with first class equipment.
Having shot competetively in ISSF rifle events over 20 years, I think I can speak on this subject with some experience. Right now, most of the time, I'm shooting my pistols, not because I think shooting skill is no longer the factor in deciding winners, I can shot a standard pistol match in less than an hour, but a 3 position ISSF rifle took almost 5 hours to complete, I just don't have this kind of time at this point of my life. Also the rule allow a free rifle weight up to 8.5 kg, however hardly anyone use a rifle that heavy, most are well under 8 kg. about 7 kg or so being most common.
As long as all shooters compete on a level field, shooting skill, not equipment, will determine winner and second best.
If I tell everyone I can ran a sub 10 sec. 100M race, all I need is a pair of running shoe they use in the Olympic track and field event, I'll become the biggest joke around, fact is, the only way for me to attain this kind of velocity is to strap 2 rocket engine onto my butt.
I'm sure you have seen, or done it yourself, shooter with less than top notch equipment beat someone else armed with first class equipment.
Having shot competetively in ISSF rifle events over 20 years, I think I can speak on this subject with some experience. Right now, most of the time, I'm shooting my pistols, not because I think shooting skill is no longer the factor in deciding winners, I can shot a standard pistol match in less than an hour, but a 3 position ISSF rifle took almost 5 hours to complete, I just don't have this kind of time at this point of my life. Also the rule allow a free rifle weight up to 8.5 kg, however hardly anyone use a rifle that heavy, most are well under 8 kg. about 7 kg or so being most common.
As long as all shooters compete on a level field, shooting skill, not equipment, will determine winner and second best.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
To be accurate the 3P and prone rifle weight limit for men is 8kg, not 8.5kg.Sparks wrote:ISSF 50m 3-Position free rifle weight limit is 8.5 kg, 6.5 for ladies' 3-position sport rifle, 5.5 for air rifles.
That compares to a maximum of 1.7kg for the olympic pistols (air pistol to be specific, assuming I'm remembering the numbers right).
The weight limit for an air pistol is 1.5kg.
New Technology????
Developed into interesting thread.
As an ex rifle shooter, I like pistol as the is a lesser reliance on equipment, the diversity of events are also present different and interesting challenges. The ISSF rules provides an excellent playing field so we all know that what we shoot, if shot to the same rules can be compared in any country and over time. Looking at the scores year on year, with albeit constant rules can enable individuals and others to make valid comparisons. Changing this consistency I feel would be a bad thing as would stretch the limits to allow new technology. I have seen pictures of pistols taken from before I was born (I am 39) using mirror sights and other devices before they were prohibited as they were not in the sprit of the rules.
I am a great fan of electronic trainers and shoot them regularly in conjunction with live fire training. I have seen a couple of competitions on video shot using just trainers (SCATT) with no live fire is a part of the event. In some countries, this could set a horrendous precedent that could be used as argument for the removal of cartridge and even air rifles/pistols.
As an ex rifle shooter, I like pistol as the is a lesser reliance on equipment, the diversity of events are also present different and interesting challenges. The ISSF rules provides an excellent playing field so we all know that what we shoot, if shot to the same rules can be compared in any country and over time. Looking at the scores year on year, with albeit constant rules can enable individuals and others to make valid comparisons. Changing this consistency I feel would be a bad thing as would stretch the limits to allow new technology. I have seen pictures of pistols taken from before I was born (I am 39) using mirror sights and other devices before they were prohibited as they were not in the sprit of the rules.
I am a great fan of electronic trainers and shoot them regularly in conjunction with live fire training. I have seen a couple of competitions on video shot using just trainers (SCATT) with no live fire is a part of the event. In some countries, this could set a horrendous precedent that could be used as argument for the removal of cartridge and even air rifles/pistols.
I really think it is kind of silly to argue about what technology to allow. If technology is the problem well them we should just go back to throwing stones at targets. Make sure they are just random stones not special match grade stones. Shooting is a sport which relies on a piece of technology to propell a projectile to a target. As long as it is a technology that everyone has the opportunity to obtain and it fits within the rules spelled out by the governing body which we as shooters allow to represent us it should be legal. Advancing technology is called progress, there are some that want to live in the past (like the Taliban), thats why we have event for them archery, blackpowder, and cowboy shooting (in the case of Taliban stonings).
Off topic but in bikes there are a whole host of bikes that riders could produce higher speeds on. The UCI has made those bikes illegal, does it make the sport any better I don't think so. Look at pole vaulting you can see when they introduced new technology the records were crushed my more than a foot.
If you make better equipment the top shooters now would most likely still be the top shooters.
Off topic but in bikes there are a whole host of bikes that riders could produce higher speeds on. The UCI has made those bikes illegal, does it make the sport any better I don't think so. Look at pole vaulting you can see when they introduced new technology the records were crushed my more than a foot.
If you make better equipment the top shooters now would most likely still be the top shooters.
-
Tony C.
One point being raised during the current discussion is projectile replacement, its my humble opinnion this will be the next big change in our sport.
Already, hunting shotgun shell must be non toxic, steel shot instead of lead must be use for water fowl hunting.
The IOC demand host cities ran a "green" Olympic game, with little or no enviromental impact, lunching lead projectile into the atmosphere, well, I can see problem down the road.
A while ago, I came across some coated air gun pellet ( will not produce lead dust on impact ) offer for sale, so, no matter you are pro or con about using lead as projectile, I think changes may, be force on us, I hope ammo makers are working on this.
Already, hunting shotgun shell must be non toxic, steel shot instead of lead must be use for water fowl hunting.
The IOC demand host cities ran a "green" Olympic game, with little or no enviromental impact, lunching lead projectile into the atmosphere, well, I can see problem down the road.
A while ago, I came across some coated air gun pellet ( will not produce lead dust on impact ) offer for sale, so, no matter you are pro or con about using lead as projectile, I think changes may, be force on us, I hope ammo makers are working on this.
Tony,Tony C. wrote: A while ago, I came across some coated air gun pellet ( will not produce lead dust on impact ) offer for sale, so, no matter you are pro or con about using lead as projectile, I think changes may, be force on us, I hope ammo makers are working on this.
As I understand it lead will be outlawed in something like 2012 (??). This will eradicate all lead and even coated lead won't be able to be used. There was an ISSF conference on this very issue in Sept of this year I think. As for what ammo makers are doing, I don't know but I'm sure they are working on it as some countries will probably outlaw lead sooner rather than later.
Rob.