the changes are slow to reach the shooting line

[NanoZ.]

I'm analyzing wy the top athletes take so long to assimilate the changes.

When the air pistol went from CO2 to compressed air, for some years the top athletes still using CO2 as Roberto Di Donna who won the Atlanta Olympics 96 with a CO2 gun.

It may be because they are slow to adapt the gun to his demands (work on grip, trigger, etc) and do not like change personalized air gun unit.

It may be that in Rio de Janeiro are not many Steyr Evo or Feinwerkbau P8X for this reason.

Nano

[renzo]

I'm not saying this is (or could be) the answer, but the Chines have an adage: "Never be the first to grasp the new, nor the last to abandon the old"

And I'm not picking on Rover!!!!!!

[hundert]

Why would you change??? I'm still on windows 7! Everything works fine? People who get new stuff on the first day are the idiots who always run into problems.

We could however see the EVO, because of sponsorship etc, but not because the athlete chose to shoot the evo instead of his older LP10.

New =/= better

[BEA]

In 1996 there were probably as many CO2 guns on the line as compressed air. The ranges had both tanks available for filling. I think neither has an accuracy advantage, so why should he have changed? The top shooters do not change or alter guns just for the sake of doing so.

[kevinweiho]

There was an anecdote where a great airpistol shooter (don’t know his name or the pistol used) blamed his CO2 pistol for one poor shot, that propelled the change to compressed air.

[X10]

Spring, CO2 or air? Air for me. Less problems.

[hundert]

Just so you know, the guy who held the world record from 1989 til 2009 shot 595 in Germany in 1995 with a CO2 pistol. The competition was this one.

It does not count towards a world record, because it's not sanctioned by the ISSF. Would he change to air? He still shoots his CO2 pistol today^^

[shaky hands]

Sometimes the opposite is true. When Moritz Minder set a new world record in Free pistol in 1978, many shooters were quick to try his unorthodox grip. But not one succeeded.

[Spencer]

I'm analyzing wy the top athletes take so long to assimilate the changes...

It might be that many (most?) (all?) of the 'improvements' to ISSF pistols since the 1960s are of marginal benefit.

For the 10m and 25m pistols, there is now a wider range of pistols available with raked and adjustable grips; recoil absorption possibly makes a difference for RFP; at the temperatures encountered at World Cups, World Championships and Olympics compressed air offers no advantage over CO2. Arguably, the inherent accuracy of pistol/ammunition has not improved since the 1960's.

Short of a pistol wearing out, if it works; why change? (sponsorship being a different matter...)

[kevinweiho]

Arguably, the inherent accuracy of pistol/ammunition has not improved since the 1960's.

The inherent accuracy of old school guns is just as good as the modern ones, but the newer guns offer better ergonomics, balance, and triggers, allowing shooters to maximize their potential in obtaining higher scores. The accuracy of pellets have improved greatly in the 80’s when RWS and H&N offered their line of match pellets to the public.

[NanoZ.]

Maybe we are reaching perfection in air guns.

I'm sure the next invention will be an electronic controller that will replace the pressure reducing unit, will send the amount of air required for each shot, and the hammer, screw and spring will not be necessary.

[kevinweiho]

I'm sure the next invention will be an electronic controller that will replace the pressure reducing unit, will send the amount of air required for each shot, and the hammer, screw and spring will not be necessary.

The electronic regulated air valve system already exists, and is being used by Daystate in their Air Wolf MVT pcp air rifle.

I don’t think the major manufacturers of target airguns will incorporate this technology because it takes up a lot of space in the gun and adds unnecessary weight. However, I have no doubt in my mind that they will be pushing the envelope to make their guns more refined and advanced.

[Rune Kanstad]

I switched from CO2 to air because it was easier to have a Scuba tank refilled than a CO2 one. Also, converting my Steyr LP to air was relatively easy with a kit from the manufacturer. Earlier this month I went to Plzen in the Czech Republic for the Grand Prix of Liberation. There were both CO2 and air available at the range, so it would seem the need is still there.

[DFWdude]

OLD WIVE'S TALES TAKE FOREVER TO DIE...

IMO, the acceptance -- and entrenchment -- of "conventional wisdom" is the biggest detriment to advancement of the sport (and most everything else, BTW).

We I began shooting AP in the 80's, there were still lots of people swearing by their 380fps (115mps) FAS604s and Pardini P10s. "Velocity isn't important, work on your follow-through technique." 50% right, that. Reminds me of a 1958 Walther LP53 (310 fps) that I recently acquired.

More people were wedded forever to their boat-anchor FWB65/90 piston guns with the bore levered 30mm above the web of the hand. Unthinkable today, but state-of-the-art then.

Along came CO2, and everyone marveled at 500-525fps. Yet they thought Ragnar Skanaker's design too weird to be a serious AP.

Eventually, people wondered why it took so long for CO2 to come along with its improved velocities. In 1992, I tuned my CO2 LP1-P to 600fps (182mps), and people laughed. Still do. But nowadays, 580-600fps is becoming more common, more accepted.

I've posted here before about the advant of AP muzzle flip compensators. I personally took lots of derision from those mired in cement overshoes, that "muzzle compensators will never catch on... just another crutch for people who can't shoot well." I now take some small measure of satisfaction in knowing that my crazy, 1988 idea (and Nygord's) is now standard on virtually every AP on the line. Vented barrels, too. Head-in-the-sand heresy in 1990.

I'm the first to admit... There is a fine line between adopting a gimmick to compensate for practice, practice and more practice... versus genuine, outside-the-box thinking that actually advances the game... albeit SLOWLY over time.

The glacial advance of technology -- and even technique -- makes the sport great, and also makes it Neanderthal at the same time.

[BEA]

I was shooting back in those days too but remember the typical logic differently. I started off shooting a FWB spring gun in 1979 just like almost everyone else. FWB owned the AP line. No one talked about velocity because we had no chronographs and the speed wasn't adjustable anyway. I stuck as close as possible to the top shooters because I wanted to hear what they had to say, wanted to be like them. I don't remember anybody "swearing" by the spring as a reason to not convert to CO2. Many initially did not shoot CO2 because they didn't want to fool with having a CO2 tank, chilling the weighing the cylinders. When I changed to a Mod 2 in early to mid 80's I did so for several reasons...I would not have to cock a spring any longer, CO2 had become available at the match locations, the velocity was higher and I thought that was better, and the gun balanced beautifully. I do not remember anybody saying velocity wasn't important, just the opposite.

I remember Ragnar's first attempt at a new AP was an effort with Crossman or Daisy...not sure exactly but it went nowhere. Then he got involved in a new compressed air pistol. I remember seeing him at a match with an air pump running to charge his cylinder...it ran and ran, noisy as hell. My first thought was who wants to fool with that not that it was weird, as you say. It was a matter of convenience, not being resistant to new technology. Speaking of CO2, it came along when it became convenient. Shooters that shoot a lot are interested in convenience because we would rather shoot than fool with our equipment.

In recent years I have chronographed a new Morini, Steyr and Pardini and they have fallen between 515 and 550 fps. I wonder if they know more about it than I do. At any rate, if it mattered for me at this point, my choice would be the velocity that yields the best accuracy provided it wasn't so high that I couldn't make it through a match on one cylinder or caused harm to the pistol. But for some reason, this is the velocity they choose to regulate their guns to. Could it be that this is the velocity at which their guns perform the best...I'll betcha.

About "muzzle flip compensators"...I remember when Don marketed his. He and I were good friends and shot on at least one team together. I did not use one but did not poo poo the idea either, although he and I talked about how it worked. Many of the people who put down the idea did not like Don, he could be controversial, but he and I got along fine. He was very inquisitive and I admired his intelligence. At times I felt like it may have held him back some, but he did jump start the porting idea. I liked my Mod 2 the way it was and shot it well. His "Turbo Comp" was a little bit of a different idea than the current multi porting on barrels. The air being expelled from a CO2 pistol is heavier than air, so his design single port design, so to speak, would be more efficient on a CO2 than a compressed air pistol. Today, the porting causes the pistol to lay flatter like Don's comp, but the multi porting serves to step down the pressure/turbulence behind the pellet as it leaves the muzzle with the goal being better accuracy.

So, the point of all this is...I just do not remember the resistance to new ideas that you do, and I do not remember being exposed to the thought processes in other shooters minds, as a whole, that you have described here...and I was very involved. It is just that those who shoot and train really hard are just more resistant to altering their equipment. This may be because it will cause practice down time, or with me, I just preferred to let other shooters try the new stuff first in order to let them uncover the pros and cons before I got involved. Equipment advances can be a good thing, but sometimes a new marketing angle is the goal, so the consumer has to be convinced that different or new is better. Some are just not so quick to bite off on it, and others are, which is fine. Whichever side you are one, make yourself happy.

[shaky hands]

I remember Ragnar's first attempt at a new AP was an effort with Crossman or Daisy...not sure exactly but it went nowhere. Then he got involved in a new compressed air pistol. I remember seeing him at a match with an air pump running to charge his cylinder...it ran and ran, noisy as hell.

May be the noise was the main feature... to annoy the competition. The free pistol '92 Olympic champion 16-year old (at the time) Konstantin Lukashyk recalled later that Ragnar tried to cough real loud while on the Barcelona line. Lukashyk aborted his final shot three times (75 second limit!) while being distracted by Ragnar's coughing. He finally shot a 9.9 with 1 second to spare and walked away with the gold medal.

[NanoZ.]

Looking the results in 10m air pistol in Olympics in Rio.

8 finalists Women 5 used steyr (One EVO10 Korakaki from Greece)
8 finalists men, 2 used steyr
the total of 7 athletes only one used evo10

Maybe in next olympic games we see reverse situation.

Nano

[Rune Kanstad]

Short of a pistol wearing out, if it works; why change? (sponsorship being a different matter...)

I know that one day I will have to replace my beloved FAS 602. Not because I will want to, but because parts are becoming scarce. So yes, there's a Pardini SP in my future somewhere, but not quite yet!

[BenEnglishTX]

I'm not a competitor. I have no experience. However, I do like reading history. Take what I say with a massive pinch of salt.

Sometimes I wonder if the mindset that resists new technology is due to a fear that any efforts expended toward such goals will be wasted, swept away by rule changes.

Some examples?

• - The ISSF doesn't allow aperture rear sights yet long range silhouette shooters have repeatedly shown that pistols equipped with them can shoot shockingly small groups.
  - When the Soviet Union started producing free pistols with electric triggers where the pistol was held in one hand and the trigger in the other hand, those pistols were immediately outlawed.
  - When (again) the Soviet Union produced a rapid fire pistol with the bore line way below the trigger finger, in line with the forearm, it was, again, immediately outlawed.

I can understand why people would be reticent to improve something when they run a substantial risk that it will not be allowed in competition.

Is the "Don't use anything new or different" attitude something that shooters just absorb from being steeped in a culture that, historically, slaps down any radical innovation?

The question is sincere; I'm genuinely curious how those with experience would answer it.

[rmca]

BenEnglishTX

Let me try to anwser some of your questions. Keep that what i'm writing is about top level competitors, not about normal people like you and me ;)

• - The ISSF doesn't allow aperture rear sights yet long range silhouette shooters have repeatedly shown that pistols equipped with them can shoot shockingly small groups..

The limiting factor is how good your hold is, not the sights. Both air or free pistols can accomplish very small groups with open sights.

• - When the Soviet Union started producing free pistols with electric triggers where the pistol was held in one hand and the trigger in the other hand, those pistols were immediately outlawed..

This in my view was well done. If you are supposed to shoot one handed, then it should do the trigger work also.
There is no point in holding with just one hand and operating the trigger with the other. You might as well shoot with both hands holding the pistol, which, in my view, would kill the free pistol "spirit".

• - When (again) the Soviet Union produced a rapid fire pistol with the bore line way below the trigger finger, in line with the forearm, it was, again, immediately outlawed.

This case was more about the image than the pistol. They wanted to have something that looked like a "normal pistol" not some special gadget... Again to not deform to much the original spirit of the sport.

Is the "Don't use anything new or different" attitude something that shooters just absorb from being steeped in a culture that, historically, slaps down any radical innovation?

No. I don't think there is an attitude against change.
You didn't have much of a resistance when the electronic targets where introduced, the switch from pump to CO2, and then to compressed air, not to mention all the changes that rifle has gone trough the years...
What you do have is a massive amount of time that's required to hone your skills with a particular piece of equipment.
Think of it as a tailored suit, you don't change to an "off the shelf" just because it's new... specially after all the effort.