TargetTalk

Moore wrote:

Modena wrote:I will SECOND that........ ole backwoods country side shooting matchs have worked that way for years......

Bad idea for the ammo. It may work for CF, but smallbore barrels are too sensitive to ammo. Given that competitors are using three brands anyway, it seems pointless, and it's not as if some competitors are handloading, and some aren't.

I didnt say it would work and it dont work in centerfire either... But with the wild ideas floating around may as well second most anything.. Here is the truth plain & simple " All shooting is about accuracy and if shooters are not willing to do what is necessary to be competitive then I suggest they take up platform diving or beach volleyball. Neither of which I have anything ageist.

David Levene wrote: Are you saying that the women aren't training to get the best score they can in 40 shots. If anything it would be the men who would possibly shoot better if they only had to fire 40 shots.

It is obvious that performances in AR are closer, but Modena wrote "personally I think all ISSF events should be mixed gender".

David, all I want to point out is that you train specifically for whatever you are asked to perform in the event. I would presume that if someone would be trained for an event that takes 60 shots it will be slightly more vigorous than someone training for 40 shots. I am not saying that is exactly what is happening. Here in the US since men and women are mixed anyway, there should be no difference as far as endurance is concerned.

My conclusion, if from reading all the data I gather, is that mixing is fine, and should do so.

Petition online:

https://www.change.org/p/international- ... m=copylink

KennyB wrote:Petition online:

https://www.change.org/p/international- ... m=copylink

I just looked (but didn't sign it). The main pic looks like 8 potentially dead people in funny looking suits lying on the ground...

I enjoy humor just as much as the next person, but this is no laughing matter in my opinion...

Just trying to convey what it looks like to the non shooter. Consider this, a non tennis player walks up to a tennis match, even if they quite stupid, they will quickly figure out what's happening and how a player wins. Same for football, golf and most other sports.

We as shooters must realise that unless our sport can appear interesting to the casual observer, we don't have a future in the Olympics. Whether we like it or not, the Olympics are now about TV ratings not sport.

j-team wrote:Just trying to convey what it looks like to the non shooter. Consider this, a non tennis player walks up to a tennis match, even if they quite stupid, they will quickly figure out what's happening and how a player wins. Same for football, golf and most other sports.

We as shooters must realise that unless our sport can appear interesting to the casual observer, we don't have a future in the Olympics. Whether we like it or not, the Olympics are now about TV ratings not sport.

So we should change everything about our sport, whether it be rifle , pistol or shotgun to appeal to the masses? Should we always pander to the lowest common denominator? The shooting sports, Olympic in particular are boring to watch ... unless you compete or have an interest in them. Its too bad every sport has to be exciting to watch and have drama at every turn. If you have ever shot a final or even been in a close competition, it is exciting to you , just not to watch.

But hey what does a old , fat guys opinion mean anyhow? They tried to kill wrestling and its status is unsure. The IOC will do what they want and our sport will go they way of softball, baseball and other "boring" sports. It's an "action sports" type of world these days and I guess that's all that matters...

YMMV,
Scott

Conradin, on the collegiate level in the US, the course of fire for rifle is the same for men and women, 3x20 smallbore and 60 shots standing in air rifle. The field is pretty level, some might say that the women might even have the advantage.


Scott

Scott J wrote:Conradin, on the collegiate level in the US, the course of fire for rifle is the same for men and women, 3x20 smallbore and 60 shots standing in air rifle. The field is pretty level, some might say that the women might even have the advantage.


Scott

Yes, I know. I try to keep track on the NCAA scene somewhat because I am part of the coaching staff of a local junior rifle club. Our own club as a team currently having twice the amount of girls than boys, and our best shooter is a girl who is still in junior high.

methosb wrote:I read it as meaning that there is too big a gap between competitive and non-competitive equipment in prone, so much so that a great shooters would find it very difficult to overcome that gap with skill, hence must shell out big $ to be competitive. I don't know how true that really is but you can see that the majority of those in the finals nowadays are using the highest end equipment ie. Bleiker.

Maybe this was not as much of a big deal when you only had to get 10s, now you have to get good 10s with the decimal scoring. Which is where Bleiker / G&E / custom gear that has been matched to specific ammunition starts pulling away from the pack.

3P would also be less of an issue due it not being scored in decimal yet and due to standing and kneeling being much less stable positions so maybe those great skill can probably overcome the equipment disadvantage.

I think there is certainly a perception of this.

You can stick any make or model of target rifle in a vice, and as long as that specific rifle isn't a lemon, it will shoot 600 with decent ammo. Some will shoot more inners than others, but whether it's a new Bleiker or an old Match 54, there is such a thing as "Good enough" - as Martynov proved at London when he left all the new Bleikers in the dust with his well-loved Annie.

By contrast, under decimal scoring the Eley Range Record is 642, 12 points off an HPS. The implication then is that even with the best rifle-ammo combination that Eley have ever seen, you can't shoot a perfect score even if you as a shooter release sixty perfect 10.9s. There is an implication of some luck or chance, because the ammo simply isn't 10.9 accurate.

There is therefore a clear perception that there is no longer such a thing as "good enough", and in order to compete you need a top end rifle - that you will have a competitive advantage with a rifle capable of shooting 641 over a rifle shooting 635 or less (even if you yourself are only capable of 618 or 622 - maybe the rifle is even the difference between those two scores?). This is IMO driving a bit of an arms race, and whilst that may not be such a problem at the very highest end where shooters either have their kit bought for them, or get support, that then filters down to the domestic scene where one person buys a Bleiker or Grunig and others then perceive that they need to do the same if they're to have any hope of competing.

This knocks onto cost of entry, etc.

One notion I've had is that the targets should run out at 10.6 or 10.7. We all know from the batch range that three "identical" shots on top of each other won't score three 10.9s. The gear just isn't that good. It is chance whether three perfectly executed shots come out as [10.9; 10.9; 10.9], or [10.9; 10.8; 10.7], or even [10.7; 10.7; 10.7]. That could represent over half a point difference just from 3 or 4 shots, never mind an entire match, which is more than enough to decide a medal, and in my opinion doesn't actually reflect the skill of the shooter. Capping the max score could limit the ability of the best rifles and bring it back to the ability of the shooter to consistently fire inner-tens.

Funny in Paralympic shooting they have "mixed" genders in some matches, and it doesn't seem to matter. All have equal access to the same equipment, ammo, etc, and it is the SHOOTER that makes the difference.

Thomas Monto wrote:Funny in Paralympic shooting they have "mixed" genders in some matches, and it doesn't seem to matter. All have equal access to the same equipment, ammo, etc, and it is the SHOOTER that makes the difference.

Yes, but there are a lot fewer people doing it, and the events aren't massively oversubscribed.

For instance, at London there were 390 athletes from 108 NOCs at the Olympics, but only 140 athletes at the Paralympics, from far fewer NOCS.

The Paralympic approach is good, but it has scaling problems, and the manner in which you allocate quotas needs to be very carefully considered or else you could damage the flag count, which reduces the number of countries whose broadcasters have an interest, and in turn the value of the event to sponsors (who, ultimately, make the whole circus happen).

Hemmers wrote:

methosb wrote:One notion I've had is that the targets should run out at 10.6 or 10.7. We all know from the batch range that three "identical" shots on top of each other won't score three 10.9s. The gear just isn't that good. It is chance whether three perfectly executed shots come out as [10.9; 10.9; 10.9], or [10.9; 10.8; 10.7], or even [10.7; 10.7; 10.7]. That could represent over half a point difference just from 3 or 4 shots, never mind an entire match, which is more than enough to decide a medal, and in my opinion doesn't actually reflect the skill of the shooter. Capping the max score could limit the ability of the best rifles and bring it back to the ability of the shooter to consistently fire inner-tens.

I've been thinking exactly the same thing - for simplicity, the x ring could be the highest value at 10.3 or 10.4 and go decimal below that. Virtually and decent rifle should be able to find ammo that would statistically shoot 95% in the X ring, even my nearly 40 year old Anschutz's.

I believe that often the biggest source of errors in smallbore comes from inaccurately estimating effects of wind - moving to a sport with an emphasis on 10m standing removes one of the major skills which outdoor shooters have to develop.

Decimal scoring is fine in theory IF you have equipment capable of delivering a 10.9 if the athlete SHOOTS a 10.9 - unfortunately smallbore rifles and ammo DON'T.

So moving to decimal scoring has CREATED the problem that "equipment quality matters".

Similarly, removing women from 50m Prone after 1984 the ISSF/IOC CREATED the problem of gender inequality that they are now seeking to correct.

It seems the IOC and their "Sports Managers" are not very good at EVOLVING our sport into "what it must become" - the law of unintended consequences seems to keep getting in the way.

"Innovative formats" need to come from those relaying the sport to the audience - not from the sport itself.

K.

KennyB wrote: I've been thinking exactly the same thing - for simplicity, the x ring could be the highest value at 10.3 or 10.4 and go decimal below that. Virtually and decent rifle should be able to find ammo that would statistically shoot 95% in the X ring, even my nearly 40 year old Anschutz's.

I believe that often the biggest source of errors in smallbore comes from inaccurately estimating effects of wind - moving to a sport with an emphasis on 10m standing removes one of the major skills which outdoor shooters have to develop.

Decimal scoring is fine in theory IF you have equipment capable of delivering a 10.9 if the athlete SHOOTS a 10.9 - unfortunately smallbore rifles and ammo DON'T.

So moving to decimal scoring has CREATED the problem that "equipment quality matters".

Similarly, removing women from 50m Prone after 1984 the ISSF/IOC CREATED the problem of gender inequality that they are now seeking to correct.

It seems the IOC and their "Sports Managers" are not very good at EVOLVING our sport into "what it must become" - the law of unintended consequences seems to keep getting in the way.

"Innovative formats" need to come from those relaying the sport to the audience - not from the sport itself.

K.

Absolutely agree. I prefer the elimination of decimal scoring, and simply count inner X for tie breakers. It is more about rewarding consistency.
I would absolutely love to be the fly on the wall inside the UIT board meeting room to hear the detail conversation behind close door back when they decided to ban women, whether it was after 84 50m prone or 92 skeet. I wonder what sort of languages the participants were using in describing women. I wonder if women were even allowed to be inside the board room.

Indeed - if the ISSF are serious about gender equality then maybe a woman should be involved in discussions on the subject with the IOC/ISD...

Prone should be kept because prone has by far the largest numbers of participants.

It may be becoming an arms race amongst the top two dozen shooters in the world, but that is certainly not the case for the vast majority who participate and are reading this forum. Most here do not have the opportunity to shoot the international course on electronic targets. But virtually any off the shelf international rifle is capable of shooting a 1600 or 3200 in American prone, and unless you are one of the handful that can consistently do that, then you have no room to cry about an arms race.

Almost everyone in a World Cup final has well over ten years experience. If skill was not the factor you would see a bunch of saplings with the means to buy equipment. Martynov has dominated the game while shooting an off the shelf Anschutz with a sling from the 60s. And before you post saying he has a "select rifle" which may be true, that is clearly an Anschutz barrel that most likely now has three to four hundred thousand rounds through it.

The IOC will destroy your sport if you let it.

What can be done to develop prone position avoiding an arms race?

This is almost impossible to stop the pursue of the best barrel/ammo paranoia amongst elite shooters.

So we need to focus on new challenges that do not mean an even more precise rifleand focus on shooting technics and skills.

I have heard suggestions like shoot in a multiple (4 or five) bulls making shooters to change position on every shot. This is possible to do with electronic targets with some software target programming and within todays free pistol targets area.

Other thing is to increase trigger weight, like 500 grams or more, the "only" issue is to replace triggers...

things like that seems crazy but new ideas need to be put on the table.


Sorry for the poor english.

FabioRifleRio wrote:What can be done to develop prone position avoiding an arms race?

Easy solution: Take away the sling.

The result of doing this would be a trend to lighter rifles.

Go back to integer scoring.