USA Shooting

[Matt]

[quote="Bob Riegl"]the old NRA system didn't work at all. We (USA) got hosed each and every time we went into "International" competition---guys like Don Nygord were the only "white" hope for the USA in shooting. quote]

Bob, You really need to research your information before publishing it. You are wrong in stating that Don Nygord was our only hope for the USA in shooting. If you had conducted a proper search, you would have found that under the NRA's sponsorship, the USA had many, upon many medal winners in rifle, pistol and shotgun in World, Olympic and Pan American competition. You may be surprised that USAS is blessed to have Lones Wigger, a living legend in rifle shooting, working on the staff. Look before you leap.

[Bob LeDoux]

Don't forget that part of the split between NRA and USAS was so the international shooting sphere could disassociate itself from the political aims of the NRA.

International shooting is practiced in countries with strict gun control laws. In some corners, like Germany, its participants are treated as national heroes. That doesn't happen in the USA, where much of our society associates negative views with anything connected with firearms.

As the NRA became very aggressive with its efforts to protect univeral gun ownership it alienated much of liberal America. The USAS also sought to avoid some of these coattails, by being viewed purely as a sport organization.

[Jay V]

(SNIP) But let's face it, WE NEED BOTH---without the NRA we would be holding spit ball events at 3 feet. Without the USAS we wouldn't have any teams for International Competition---the old NRA system didn't work at all. (SNIP) Let's continue to support the NRA without question and USAS likewise---you and I MUST support both these organizations without the second guessing and usual crap we see posted.

Thanks Bob - well said.

I feel that a lot of shooters are looking for an organization to do all the work for them - it's not going to happen. Unfortunately, International shooting doesn't have all the excitement and big money sponsors like some of the other shooting disciplines either.

Look at shooters like Bill Demarest and John Zurek. They have done it alone - on talent and commitment. It's a huge task, and in my opinion is not well rewarded even if you do succeed winning an Olympic medal or setting a new World Record.

Running and supporting either NRA or USA Shooting matches is not that much work, but it is work. We all need to work to make our sport more popular and accepted.


Jay V
IL
www.aiac-airguns.org

[mikeschroeder]

I agree that the cost to convert ranges to a true "international" setup would be extremely expensive. However - I don't think that it is necessary for EVERY range in the US to be outfitted as such. Only nationals would require a range like that. ......So why would it be necessary for everyone getting into smallbore to shoot on electronic target systems?....

Hi

Cut out the parts I'm commenting on. The problem seems to be that unless you blow the big dollars (especially for Rapid Fire), you don't get any credit for shooting International. It shouldn't be necessary for everyone to shoot on electronic targets either, but FROM MY LIMITED UNDERSTANDING (emphasis not screaming) unless you have a full-up Olympic setup, it doesnt' count. In my opinion, that's just wrong.

We want the same thing. For example, I shoot NRA Conventional Pistol. I could be shooting a rapid fire event prior to the match with my .22LR. I could be shooting at 50 meters instead of 50 yards etc.

Mike
Wichita KS

[mikeschroeder]

Don't forget that part of the split between NRA and USAS was so the international shooting sphere could disassociate itself from the political aims of the NRA. ......

As the NRA became very aggressive with its efforts to protect univeral gun ownership it alienated much of liberal America. The USAS also sought to avoid some of these coattails, by being viewed purely as a sport organization.

Hi

While TRUE, I understood that the split was forced, not just an idea. In addition, you can't avoid alienating a liberal if you admit that guns, bow, or rocks should be allowed to exist. By trying to avoid problems by dropping the NRA you produce an even greater set of problems. To go with the NRA Plants, USAS harvests analogy: The NRA is planting Bullseye, Silhouette, Highpower, and 3-P Smallbore shooters. Get what, the USAS is trying to harvest International shooters from this crop.

In my opinion, the NRA should be put back in the position of National Governing Body, and the NRA should be appointing someone (probably Lones Wigger) to work at coordinating a change in both Olympic Shooting and NRA shooting so that they overlap. I can't give examples since my NRA rulebooks are in the car, and I don't even know where to look for the Olympic rules. Personal opinion, it's silly to only shoot standing Air Rifle at the Olympics.

Mike

[sureshot007]

Mike,

You are right about it not counting...

My point is that who cares if it counts until you are at that level when it will make a difference. When you are at a level capable of shooting a record score, you should be shooting at a range that is equiped. That is to say - those serious enough and skillfull enough would move to an area that is equiped for it. Until you are at that level - should you be worried about shooting a score and not having it count? You should be shooting for the shear pleasure of it. If you have your sights on an olympic appearence, but are not at that level yet, you should be more concerned with practice rather than your score being eligible for national records.

It still boils down to the basic issue that USAS does nothing to grow the shooting base, and the NRA does nothing to help the olympic community. If USAS exists soley as a committee to choose an olympic team, and give them a place to shoot - then they have accomplished their goal. But I believe (and I am pretty sure that others do to) USAS should be concerned with developing shooters BEFORE they reach nationally competitive levels. They do a good thing with the jr olympics, but it shouldn't stop there. And it shouldn't be restricted to jrs either.

I am upset because I see the potential, but it won't happen under the current system we have. As was mentioned earlier - WE have to take the initiative. WE have to take responsibility for OUR sport. If you don't feel that your money is doing good with USAS - then do something about it. I would rather give my annual membership fee directly to a competitor working on his (or her) dream. That's just my 2 cents...

[pilkguns]

to quote from this thread in September
viewtopic.php?p=38611&highlight=#38611
My last comment is still valid.

I don'nt think anyone will disagree including Bob Mitchell that there was more "money" during the NRA days. There was no need to go market yourself to the industry to get cash to carry out the program. But as has already been said in this thread and it is correct to my understanding (NRA staffers correct me if I'm wrong) but the money in the other competitive shooting programs is less in recent years and issued more on a pay as you go basis. So even if we were back under NRA's wings, its doubtful that the "money" would be the same. AND has already been mentioned too, going back under NRA is not possible given USOC guidelines for NGB's so this part of this discussion is wishful thinking. Yes, I wish the the two organizations I love were one and the same, or at least united, but they are'nt and I don't see any possibility that they will again.Sooooooooooooo.....

lets get back to a productive discussion of what can be improved at USAS. I think they are doing many things right, and a lot of that came about Mitchell's leadership. I have absolutely no doubt that things are much better all the way across the board since Mitchell's leadeship of USAS. Two Golds and a Silver is the best Olympic results in 2O years, and we had 4 narrow misses at other medals. Program wise, 3P Air has caused an explosion of young shooters across the country. USAS just invested in bunch of junior air pistols to try to do something similar for the pistol side of the house. Are there things that can be improved at USAS? are there things I don't like at USAS? Sure, yes to both, but overall the program is MUCH improved over what it was 4 years ago. If you' ve got suggestion on what should be changed, lets hear them. We've got a few of our own that might be utilized now that we are 48 months from the next Olympics not 18 months out.

But this discussion of NRA rule either past or future is a waste of time and bandwith. Let's move on folks.

[PETE S]

It is a nice thought. In the circle I communicate with I have suggested the same.

BUT: When Bob Mitchell stands in the membership meeting at the Nationals when we suggest shortening the National to improve attendance; he said "The Volunteers will never go for it"

Doc Sexton made a nice proposal. In Bob Mitchell's response, he misquoted the schedule that Doc had proposed. See Steve Swartz analysis elsewhere in Target Talk.

Warren had a thread and a poll to shorten the Nationals. Ignored and discounted.

Mr. Pilkington, show me some evidence Mr. Mitchell is listening and hearing, not just taking the attitude that he KNOWS best.

[pilkguns]

Pete
you are certainly are mixing apples and oranges in this discussion. There are several threads regardng the shortened pistol nationals, which I have endorsed if you have read any of them. It shouldn't be that hard since they are pretty short, which amazes me............. What I really wanted to say and did'nt in the above post is that here is a perfect example of useless chatter on the internet. You people want to cry and moan about the NRA could do X,Y,Z better than USAS, but when it comes down to a live issue that could be changed at USAS for the betterment of the pistol communtiy, the silence is deafening. Its no wonder that USAS says that their is not enough interest to change the schedule. If Ihad to go on what I have seen on TT, then yep, everything is perfect. Every one wants to talk big, but put your money where your mouth is, and call and e-mail USAS if you want this done

[PETE S]

I don't think so, Scott. Shortening the Nationals is one way to improve USAS and help attendance at the Nationals. Mr Mitchell was given feedback and he dismissed it from the start.

I joined a local club for one purpose, to hold pistol PTOs. Search my posts; you will see I have often advocated holding PTOs etc as a grass roots way of improving and contributing to international shooting.

You will not see one suggestion from me about the NRA, great group, but I agree with you that the NRA has nothing to do, and will not have anything to do, with improving international shooting. I do a fair amount of Bullseye shooting. The NRA did not help us rebuild our range, a few local dedicated shooters do all the work.

You made the statement:
"lets get back to a productive discussion of what can be improved at USAS. I think they are doing many things right, and a lot of that came about Mitchell's leadership. I have absolutely no doubt that things are much better all the way across the board since Mitchell's leadeship of USAS."

Attendance and participation has dropped, that is also part of Mr. Mitchell's present legacy.

My point remains, and I am very mild in my criticism compared to many of my freinds who have run junior programs, held PTOs and such, how can we improve USAS when we don't believe anyone is listening. The shortened Nationals is an example of dismissing any idea when it was presented.

[PETE S]

Scott:
I have read the threads about the shortened Nationals, reread first post here, I reference Steve Swartz and Doc Sexton if you read my post.

I also participated in Warren's poll a few months ago, and was one of the nine people who responded to Buddy Duval's survey.

[mikeschroeder]

AND has already been mentioned too, going back under NRA is not possible given USOC guidelines for NGB's so this part of this discussion is wishful thinking. Yes, I wish the the two organizations I love were one and the same, or at least united, but they are'nt and I don't see any possibility that they will again.Sooooooooooooo.....

lets get back to a productive discussion of what can be improved at USAS.

Actually that gives me another idea. Since USOC as opposed to the IOC changed the guidelines for NGB's, maybe we should consider pressuring the USOC to change them back. Personal opinion, unless you get the NRA behind international shooting, at least half as much as they are behind Bullseye, you don't stand much of a chance. It seems to me from the comments made, that the "new rule" was made JUST to get rid of the NRA. That's discrimination..... Worth a try in my opinion.

A LARGE portion of the clubs who have ranges are associated with the NRA. I haven't heard of that many associated with the just the USAS. Our junior club is run under the 4-H, is a CMP club second, an NRA club, and also a USAS Club. We don't have our own range though. At this point, in Kansas, only Air Rifle / Pistol clubs are associated with the USAS. This leaves out all shotgun, and all smallbore Olympic style shooting. In short, in Kansas we don't care enough about the Olympics to host a Rapid Fire Pistol event, or any other event that's not air only.

Mike

[Bill Kelley]

Not to be cynical, but our sport, like all others, is dependent on the resources available. As a collegiate coach, I am convinced that one of the reasons rifle prospers in the US is that juniors and their parents perceive that there are scholarship dollars (no matter how few) in collegiate rifle.

I have been suggesting that a summit conference of USAS, NRA, NCAA liasons, collegiate coaches, along with junior coaches, meet face to face to produce a thoughtful approach to improving the success of US shooting sports. IMH, this will require, more than anything else, all involved putting down our oversized egos and working together for the betterment of our sport and athletes.

Wouldn't it be exciting if all the Olympic shooting sports became NCAA sports and went to FT Benning or OTC to hold a national championship? Don't feel that I'm pushing the NCAA- they, too, have their faults. But they also have the cachet of representing collegiate athletics to the nation. Then USAS would have a real "farm system" in all the shooting disciplines, not just rifle.

We can do this- but it will take all of us working together to pull it off. I'm constantly amazed that we are already becoming a minor interest in our culture, but we are so insistent on dividing up the already tiny pie just so we can control our slice. If we'd work with each other the pie would grow so that all of us can benefit. Anyone interested?

[Guest]

The way I see it is the subject has been on whether the NRA or USAS is better than one another. I think that they outta just work together on things, fielding a olympic team, grassroots program, etc. Better communication between them both. Why not have both USAS and NRA fund the olympic team? Why not both support a grassroots program? You see if you have both organizations working together you have more money, more people working on it. actually the only part of the NRA we are talking about is the competitions division. I think they just need to work together. We need to support them both. Remember everyone, United we stand. Divided we fall!

[Will Hart]

Bill Kelly wrote:
Wouldn't it be exciting if all the Olympic shooting sports became NCAA sports and went to FT Benning or OTC to hold a national championship? Don't feel that I'm pushing the NCAA- they, too, have their faults. But they also have the cachet of representing collegiate athletics to the nation. Then USAS would have a real "farm system" in all the shooting disciplines, not just rifle.

Then we could be like track - track & field, or swimming - swimming and diving, and be under the NCAA umbrella. The shooting sports have just as much in common with each other as the other sports mentioned, maybe even more so. The NCAA isn't perfect, but it lends credibility to the collegiate programs, and think about how Title IX could play into this.

Warren and I spoke of this option a couple of years ago and it still makes sense. Yes, the NRA would/could still be involved, hopefully, or even USAS, and that would go a long way to building the programs up from the grass roots.

[jackh]

I am confused or at least uninformed. I lost the point here actually. I get the feeling that some want all their matches to be PTO's and every body should think the same. In a dream world.

The NRA does have International Rules
( http://materials.nrahq.org/go/products. ... =Rulebooks ). I don't know why that is not satisfactory for the grassroots Int'l shooters.

Shoot your matches like bullseye dies with Approved status on ranges that may not even be totally Olympic style. Save your so called PTO's for State and Regionals.