TargetTalk

Sparks wrote:

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.

Actually, none of those sports put children in the line of injury.
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.

Actually, I tell a lie - Gaelic football does put kids in the line of injury. Our first lesson in football here (we were 5 at the time) was on how to re-locate our own fingers on the field in the event of a dislocation.

But then again, the people who ran the sport like that were the Christian Brothers, and if you're not Irish and haven't heard of the Ryan Report, let's just say that they were not the kind of people who should have been entrusted with the safekeeping of children!

I don't think "put in the line of injury" was accurate. The truth is all those sports are far more risky and all have higher injury rates than shooting. Having played many been injured doing them, luckily no broken bones. My knees are still buggered from high school football. I know gymnasts that have had concussions, broken bones, dislocations, and chronic back and joint injuries after they get out of the sport. These things usually only get magnified as they reach higher levels of competition too.

Being from Canada we know of the Christian Brothers, they weren't very Christian nor very brotherly either.

Sparks, sorry but you are wrong about injuries to youth from sports.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), participation in organized sports is on the rise. Nearly 30 million children and adolescents participate in youth sports in the United States. This increase in play has led to some other startling statistics about injuries among America's young athletes:

High school athletes account for an estimated 2 million injuries and 500,000 doctor visits and 30,000 hospitalizations each year.
More than 3.5 million kids under age 14 receive medical treatment for sports injuries each year.
Children ages 5 to 14 account for nearly 40 percent of all sports-related injuries treated in hospitals. On average the rate and severity of injury increases with a child's age.
Overuse injuries are responsible for nearly half of all sports injuries to middle and high school students.
Although 62 percent of organized sports-related injuries occur during practice, one-third of parents do not have their children take the same safety precautions at practice that they would during a game.
Twenty percent of children ages 8 to 12 and 45 percent of those ages 13 to 14 will have arm pain during a single youth baseball season.
Injuries associated with participation in sports and recreational activities account for 21 percent of all traumatic brain injuries among children in the United States.
According to the CDC, more than half of all sports injuries in children are preventable.
By age 13, 70 percent of kids drop out of youth sports. The top three reasons: adults, coaches and parents.
Among athletes ages 5 to 14, 28 percent of percent of football players, 25 percent of baseball players, 22 percent of soccer players, 15 percent of basketball players, and 12 percent of softball players were injured while playing their respective sports.
Since 2000 there has been a fivefold increase in the number of serious shoulder and elbow injuries among youth baseball and softball players.

Above is from: http://www.stopsportsinjuries.org/media/statistics.aspx

The shooting sports have almost no injuries, and those we have are minor. The chronic problems you seem to be concerned with are from poor conditioning and poor technique. We still see the standing position taught by a few old coaches using the 1960s "back bend and twist" which lead to back surgeries ala Bob Foth. New techniques eliminate the twist while scores continue to climb.

You say today's shooting pants are there "for a damn good reason". What is the reason, other than shooting athletes being unwilling to spend the effort for proper conditioning? I see small weight lifters raising extremely heavy weights with only a small kidney belt, not a full trouser girdle. Why do shooters with a 17 pound gun (which is perhaps heavier than should be allowed if it is causing chronic injuries) need the full support of the trousers and jackets?

Pat
It's been a long time since I shot smallbore.
I never wore pants in prone. I did use them for standing, but never felt it helped support my back. I did like the secure feeling it gave me.
Can't explain it. When I shot high power I did not use shooting pants, although I did some times wear a sweat pants under my jeans.
What I did love about the pants was for kneeling, it really helped support my position. Even unbuckled.
You do not get much support from the coat, if it is buttoned properly. I remember going from the heavy NRA coat to the ISU light coat.
Every one thought the scores would tank. The opposite resulted, the scores went through the roof.
Some times we cannot understand why the rules committee insists on changing the rules, I say if it's not broken, leave it alone.

Sparks wrote: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?

I know it's a pet of yours about back injury and shooting, but the facts don't point to there being a need for gym work for a junior to shoot in the standing position without injury.

If a shooter requires core strengthening, that's an existing weakness, but that doesn't apply to everyone, and at no stage is anyone coached to shoot through pain, unless you are top ranked, and even then it's a debate between qualified coach, medical staff and shooter.

As we are discussing safety issues, and remembering that we still don't know what the new rules are going to say in detail, can anyone explain to me why there is a need for standing rifle shooters to wear boots that come above the ankle bone.

Is there a safety issue or, as I suspect, is it merely because they provide additional support / stability.

I can see a possible justification for kneeling but have never had a sensible answer regarding standing.

David Levene wrote:As we are discussing safety issues, and remembering that we still don't know what the new rules are going to say in detail, can anyone explain to me why there is a need for standing rifle shooters to wear boots that come above the ankle bone.

Is there a safety issue or, as I suspect, is it merely because they provide additional support / stability.

I can see a possible justification for kneeling but have never had a sensible answer regarding standing.

I always thought it stemmed from a combination of needing the support in the kneeling position and not wanting to require 3P shooters to buy a complete second set of kit; also 7.4.6.2.1

What does clothing have to do with safety? I could safely shoot anything naked as far as I am aware. Of course Prone around red ants might not be the best choice. But really, I don't think all the clothes are for protection they are for stiffening up the shooters hold/position and nothing else.

Bowman26 wrote:What does clothing have to do with safety? I could safely shoot anything naked as far as I am aware.

Which doesn't mean you could shoot safely naked.

You really don't think you could safely shoot a gun naked? lol Clothing is not for safety in competitive shooting is what I was pointing out. Where did you get that information? Glasses and hearing protection are safety related items. I will not likely shoot naked anytime soon btw. ;) if I do it will be at someone breaking into my house in the middle of the night.

Shooting pistols naked could indeed be dangerous - hot cases burn, especially if they go down shirt fronts or land between the toes! Learned quickly not to wear sandals on the line.

Dr. Jim

Bowman26 wrote:You really don't think you could safely shoot a gun naked? lol Clothing is not for safety in competitive shooting is what I was pointing out.

I think you are misunderstanding Sparks, he isn't talking about acute injuries, but long term exposure to inferior posture during quiet standing. The lower back is an exposed body part but is somewhat helped by the jacket-pants combination. It's what could happen after 10 years of high-level competition and the training that comes with it (not after one training session).

EJ wrote:

Bowman26 wrote:You really don't think you could safely shoot a gun naked? lol Clothing is not for safety in competitive shooting is what I was pointing out.

I think you are misunderstanding Sparks, he isn't talking about acute injuries, but long term exposure to inferior posture during quiet standing. The lower back is an exposed body part but is somewhat helped by the jacket-pants combination. It's what could happen after 10 years of high-level competition and the training that comes with it (not after one training session).

Exactly. You want to go to the range and plink for an hour every other weekend? No jacket or trousers needed, and fair play to you, we need those shooters too.
But if you want to train for 4 hours on the range every single day, well, that's a whole other set of risks.

Many athletes in sports with far more physical demands than ours (rowers, high jumpers, pole vaulters, weight lifter, shot put discus, hammer throwers, etc) spend four or more hours a day training for years on end without serious chronic problems. Perhaps because as athletes they have developed their muscles rather than asked the organizing body to allow them to use artificial support to achieve their goals.

Shooters are supposed to be athletes too. Yes, it takes additional training time to develop the proper muscles, but that is the nature of any sport.

Pat McCoy wrote:Many athletes in sports with far more physical demands than ours (rowers, high jumpers, pole vaulters, weight lifter, shot put discus, hammer throwers, etc) spend four or more hours a day training for years on end without serious chronic problems. Perhaps because as athletes they have developed their muscles rather than asked the organizing body to allow them to use artificial support to achieve their goals.

Last time I looked, weightlifters and shotputt and discus throwers all had belts, pole vaulters used large thick mats to land on, and rowers have sliding seats and heel restraints so they don't mangle their backs.

Shooters are supposed to be athletes too. Yes, it takes additional training time to develop the proper muscles, but that is the nature of any sport.

You're missing the point completely.
You think it would bother Matt Emmons if you took away the suits? The man's fulltime job is target shooting, he's already doing the gymwork. It'd just be another fun challange for him.

But for people who aren't doing this fulltime and have to hold down jobs and can't risk long-term expensive chronic injuries; or those who are just starting off and haven't yet learnt enough to not injure themselves without the suits -- for the bottom 99% of the sport in other words -- taking away the suits is a recipe for chronic injuries.

And telling someone that to try our sport - just to try it safely - requires a regular gym programme on pain of permanent back injuries? That's just going to stop new blood coming into the sport, and that's the death knell for it right there.

Pat McCoy wrote:Many athletes in sports with far more physical demands than ours (rowers, high jumpers, pole vaulters, weight lifter, shot put discus, hammer throwers, etc) spend four or more hours a day training for years on end without serious chronic problems.

Rowers: knees & shoulders
high jumpers: Achilles tendon
weight lifter: knees, shoulders & elbows (they are pretty much broken after 30)
shot put: shoulders, elbows
are a few examples of common injuries over time in those sports. More or less all athletes on a higher level have or have had a whole set of injuries and chronic ones fits in well here. Sport is not healthy when you're trying to be good at it. At a recreational level it's excellent, but after that, not really. The problem here is all those are based on movement, and shooting is the opposite. We're not trying to use muscles to stabilize the core in position, the opposite actually (if I'm simplifying it). So a big part of the upper body mass comes together at a small part in the lower back. Clothes can relieve the forces somewhat. Of course they stabilizes the posture as well but you can't take away the effect of spreading out the forces.

Pat McCoy wrote:Shooters are supposed to be athletes too. Yes, it takes additional training time to develop the proper muscles, but that is the nature of any sport.

I completely agree. There's not enough focus on physical fitness. The point (that at least I'm trying to make) is that it might not be enough. Anecdote, me: I'm probably one of the fitter shooters in here (AR), I dead lift 300lb and can do a toe roll-out on an ab roller but still feel my back while shooting more than a few hours a week. That could mean my technique/posture is inferior for back relief, I have a bad back or that's the fact of the game. It's probably a mix of them all, but it does give you a hypothesis to work with. It would be great to see some research on this topic (rifle shooters as a population).

I wonder if we can get some of the 3P Air coaches who are still involved to tell us about their history with "Sporter" class shooters, and any ongoing or lingering physical problems their athletes have had. While not a "controlled" study, it could shed some light on the subject. Our juniors only shot "sporter class" for a couple years, then transitioned to "Precision", but I know many groups around the country shoot "sporter" only.

Yes, kidney belts are used in some of the "power" sports, but not "full body" support, and I see none in other "endurance sports".

I stand corrected on the chronic injuries, and should have known there had to be some.

In 41 years of instructing, and 27 years of coaching, I've had many "try" the sport without injury and without the supporting clothing.

I just wanted to chip in here. I am a junior shooter and have been shooting for 4 years. When I started off, I had and atrocious position and a rifle that was way to heavy for me. I now suffer from nagging back pain that I have almost everyday. For those of you who have stated that shooters need to have be doing strength training, I have been doing it for 3 of the 4 years that I have been shooting. It still does not help, I worked on strengthening my core. Doing squats, dead lifts, other ab exercises. I was maxing out at 335 on squats and 405 on dead lift with perfect form so my core and back was plenty strong. It was that first two years that did me in.

If I didn't have the pants and jacket I would not be able to shoot anymore or would probably be bound to a wheelchair fairly quickly if I continued.




Here are two olympic weight lifters, both doing the same lift (granted at different stages) and roughly the same weight you will notice that one is using a belt and one is not. Perhaps the one who wears a belt had an unfortunate accident and is no longer able to compete without it, yet is still competitive with it.

And after writing all of that I forgot where I was going with it...

chronic back pain wrote:I just wanted to chip in here. I am a junior shooter and have been shooting for 4 years. When I started off, I had and atrocious position and a rifle that was way to heavy for me. I now suffer from nagging back pain that I have almost everyday.

My solution to your problem. Take up pistol shooting!

Pat McCoy wrote:In 41 years of instructing, and 27 years of coaching, I've had many "try" the sport without injury and without the supporting clothing.

For one or two shots over a 5-10 minute period or for a full match?
In ten years of instructing, I've seen a lot of people try one or maybe two shots without kit; they all wince when unwinding themselves from the position they get themselves into. We don't like it being done that way and we generally wrap them in a jacket if we know they'll be doing it for more than five minutes, and these days, we prefer to have them shoot the rifle from a sandbag on the table while sitting in a chair if they're starting off.
When the consequences for a mistake include permanent back problems, most of us have learnt the hard way to prefer not to use the "Erra, shure, it'll be fine" approach.