TargetTalk

bruce wrote: I've yet to meet any competitor or spectator who thinks that paper targets provided a better experience.

because you failed to use reason and give an appropriate answer you chose to outsource your opinion to people who only know well organized, electronic competitions and low cost paper club shooting.

Give me the organization of any event, and I'll literally destroy the electronic crap with paper. The spectators will see every shot hitting the paper on a large screen and you will see the bullet too. And it won't cost much. People used to bring binoculars back in the day. Today there is nothing to look at except at a microsoft paint piece of junk on a crappy three color screen of some dot or cross in a larger black circle. Or you can choose to look at a black roll of a toilet paper.

I'm assuming they use Meyton, Sius, Disag, because of the small crosses on screen instead of circles for hits. That's so retarded and that software is a piece of junk and should never be used for spectators.

philipelhage wrote:
just place a LED or anything that can notify if it's a hit or not with the total above the target

yeah, this will definitely increase the popularity!!! You should apply for ISSF, you'll fit right in. Tell them you want to place an LED above target!!! Wow!!! Spectacular.

philipelhage wrote:
drop RFP

Rapid Fire is the only event worth watching. For some reason they never have good [color] commentators, but it's good on its own, even with sound muted

Try shooting a final on paper targets. It will take longer than shooting the qualification round for only 20 shots. That's why i think electronics is a better solution.

In favor or against electronic targets is a choice, an opinion. However I see in our club after electronic targets were installed, (1) people in the clubhouse are watching the event on TV screens, (2) many more shooters (old and new) got interested in AP shooting. So, you may like it or not, but it makes shooting more attractive.
The crosses to visualize the impacts, instead of circles may have to do with the validation of the equipment by ISSF. Accepting a program for official use is a complex and lengthy process. That may be the reason the official matches stick with 'old' software.
Maybe David Levene can shine a light on this.
Compare precision target shooting with Trap or Skeet. In these disciplines the public sees the target, hears the crack and sees the result immediately not an hour later on a paper.
Same with Practical Pistol: the viewers see the targets fall. That’s why people are watching.
My point of view.
Best regards and shoot on paper or on electronic target whatever you enjoy!
Guy

gn303 wrote: Maybe David Levene can shine a light on this.

No idea I'm afraid, other than to say that Sius have an agreement until 2020 to provide the ESTs for Junior Cups, World Cups, World Cup Finals and World Championships.

With the ISSF screwing around 300FR3x40, it really ruins everything. So FP is now the ONLY event that has no change since 1904 or so. You can genuinely say Jin is better than Ullmann as the target is the same, the pistol is the same, etc. If my score is 250 (out of 600), I can genuinely say I would have placed better than several people in several Olympics and they would have no excuse of equipment inferiority or anything else, and I am a better shooter than those people whom I beat back in 1908-1920s. It is almost like a postal match except it is timeless.

I am not good at FP much, but I love it because I can genuinely know how I compare with everyone since 1900. There were some time limits changing but that's about it. IF you know you need average 7 minutes a shot, you pretty much can compare with anyone else, because that was the slowest time you get through out the years. If 1912 you need to be as quick as anyone shooting the finals back in the 80s. No other ISSF discipline can have direct comparison of performance that is close to 116 years.

conradin wrote:...I am not good at FP much, but I love it because I can genuinely know how I compare with everyone since 1900....

To accurately compare your scores to the old guys, you would need to shoot the pistols they used. Refinements evolve to make it easier.

I think your driving this too far. Do you want to compare e.g. the world hour record in Bicycling with the times or distances that were achieved on bikes made say 50 years ago? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, the Free pistols used in the '50s do not differ that much from what is used today. Indeed, the factories introduced electronic triggers, but if elec. triggers would make a significant difference, all competitors would use them. And I don't think the guns used by the champions are 'out of the box' either. They are well prepared and tailored to the need of the individual athlete. In FP, the one thing that did not change is the target. And that is also true for full bore rifle 300m.

Regards,
Guy

slofyr wrote:

conradin wrote:...I am not good at FP much, but I love it because I can genuinely know how I compare with everyone since 1900....

To accurately compare your scores to the old guys, you would need to shoot the pistols they used. Refinements evolve to make it easier.

I did.
I have handled a Sauveur, a Swiss commissioned pistol (1900 Olympics, WC 1900-1902), a S&W perfected model, a S&W Russian (1896 Olympics), a Stecherspanner, a Tell, a Hammerli 100 series, a Hammerli 150/60 series, A Morini CM84E, a Toz 35, even the 1939 WC Zentrum, which is similar to the MTs pistols. There were maybe a total of 2 or 3 models of Olympic or world championship free pistols that I have never personally handled or fired before, and only the MTs55 I would consider a significant regret that I have never handled or fired before.

The modern free pistol evolution started with the 1908 Büchel Stecherspanner, then 1909 Buchel Tell, then Hugo Doll copied it and made it into the MP33, Hämmerli bought him out after the WWII, then Hämmerli had a new ownership and renamed it 100, thus the 100 series. During the 1970s they moved the foreend away from the barrel and hence the 150 series. Electronic trigger replaced the set trigger. Wang Yifu was fed up of losing, so he became a Morini client and won the 94 championship first time out.

Mr. Efim Haydurov copied the Hämmerli and made the Isch 1, then mass produced it into the Toz 35.

A Toz 35 just won the last WC in the Rio Warm up. It is the same thing that Richard Fisher won with the 1908 World Championship with, except Fischer's grip does not have an all enveloping grip, so it was even harder for Fisher, but Fisher has an entire afternoon to shoot, so he has a time advantage. I have handled a Stecherspanner before, and if anything, it was harder because of the tiny sight. Other than that, everything is the same.
If you like to shoot a free pistol WITHOUT a hair trigger or set your trigger weight heavier, you can compare yourself with the 1905 world champion Julien Van Asbroeck, or the 1908 (Paul Van Ashbroeck), 1912 (Lane) and 1920 (Fredereick) Olympic champion. Just to be fair, Paul BEAT the hair trigger pistols (the entire German team) in 1909-1910. I have handled all their free pistols models before.
If you use a CFP (.32 or smaller for example) to shoot free pistol for fun, you can compare yourself from 1900-1904, and 1906. Remember, you STILL have to shoot it shot by shot, just like them. Target is the same, scoring is the same, distance is the same. Just slightly more time. If you think it is unfair because they get 8 to 16 hours to finish 60 shots, that was only because that 16 hours was for the ENTIRE team. 16 hours means "The range is open for two days, you can use it anytime". Stäheli could show up with his Swiss Luger .30 and spent 1 hour finishing up his match in 1906, then his teammates would take over one by one, and all five of them probably all packed up by lunch time. In 1912, the total time allow for individual was one hour IIRC. Team USA shot side by side instead of one after another. I still have the photo.

gn303 wrote:As a matter of fact, the Free pistols used in the '50s do not differ that much from what is used today. Indeed, the factories introduced electronic triggers, but if elec. triggers would make a significant difference, all competitors would use them. And I don't think the guns used by the champions are 'out of the box' either. They are well prepared and tailored to the need of the individual athlete. In FP, the one thing that did not change is the target. And that is also true for full bore rifle 300m.

Regards,
Guy

Slight correction, the free pistol has not been changed since 1908.

when was .22rimfire first allowed for Free Pistol?

For RFP, rimfire was first allowed around 1924, though CF was still allowed at the 1936 Olympics.

Spencer wrote:when was .22rimfire first allowed for Free Pistol?

For RFP, rimfire was first allowed around 1924, though CF was sill allowed at the 1936 Olympics.

The other way around. .22 rf has been ALWAYS allowed in FP since 1901. .22 was mandatory by 1908. Competitors were smarter anyway, because the advantage of small recoil offset the advantage of the size of bullet for scoring purposes. By 1905 or so, the type of pistol used officially became "completely free choice". Before that "any service pistol of your choice" is mandatory. People still used the smallest center fire caliber during those 5 or 6 years. Nobody used anything other than single shot .22 by 1905, except Staeheli. Notice the Germans used .22CF originally with their single shot hair trigger. However none of them won individual gold in any competition, before they too started to use .22rf. .22lr became mandatory after WWII, not because people used .22 short, but to close the potential loophole of .22CF.

conradin wrote:...I have handled a Sauveur, a Swiss commissioned pistol (1900 Olympics, WC 1900-1902), a S&W perfected model, a S&W Russian (1896 Olympics), a Stecherspanner, a Tell, a Hammerli 100 series, a Hammerli 150/60 series, A Morini CM84E, a Toz 35, even the 1939 WC Zentrum, which is similar to the MTs pistols... etc...etc....

Didn't you notice the difference in weight, balance, sights, barrel axis and sight line height, trigger, and the grip surface/angle/ergonomics? Every model of 50-meter pistol has it’s own unique feel and qualities, and beyond the basic layout earlier FP's do differ from recent production. Cars have remained the same, too, they all tend to have four wheels. It would be a safe bet that many of today's top shooters with 84e's would drop points if they had to use vintage FP's.

conradin wrote:Mr. Efim Haydurov copied the Hämmerli and made the Isch 1, then mass produced it into the Toz 35.

They might look similar of the outside, but the Toz is no "copy" of the Hammerli. The internal mechanism is vastly different (and superior).