TargetTalk

Whatever happened to rapid fire air pistol? At one time or another most of the top manufacturers offered a version of a 5-shot auto loading .177 Match style pistol, but the Lp50 seems to be the only one still being offered. Kruger offers at least 4 different versions of paper target called ISSF, Finnish, and French with bulls as large as 200 mm and as small as 75 mm, but I have no idea if they can actually be obtained. There is a reference to "Air Pistol Rapid Event" in the owner's manual of the CO2 Czech Aeron B96, so somebody thought about it once upon a time.

Seems to me, such an event could be popular with the "Spray and Pray" taktikool types that populate pistol ranges these days. It might even be a decent sales tool for getting the kids to try precision shooting.

RF Air was quietly strangled by ISSF. Mostly because it posed a direct threat to RF, Standard, and SP. The anti-gun fanatics would have loved the opportunity to substitute air pistols for cartridge guns...then banned the latter.

Rather sad, really. I think RF Air might have had potential...but they really needed to change the rules to make the target bay small enough for an individual to own his personal, portable bay. Maybe three targets, with two shots on each for a six-shot string. Then turn the whole thing on the horizontal axis (meaning one frame to turn, the targets are a three-bull strip)

As for recruiting the spray-and-pray types, I'm afraid it's been tried...with a singular lack of success. You have to remember that while RF may not be as precise as FP, it's still far more demanding than blasting at a pie-plate-sized target at 10 yards or so.

I tried to get more information on this discipline
I just wanted to get a 5 shot AP and train at home with smaller targets
I might still get a 5s AP just to have for training

As far as getting young people to get into AP or AR or just precision shooting, I just don't see the interest from them
I was talking with 3 young guys that works at the shooting range that I go to and from what I gather is that they just don't get precision shooting
They feel that it looks kind of dumb/funny holding a pistol with 1 hand and the posture you have when shooting
So I asked what do they like, IDPA? tactical shooting?
They all said yes
It's more fun and more realistic!
They like those "race guns"
I shoot a Walther SSP and most people have no interest in it or even curious about it

Maybe precision shooters (and governing bodies) should change their strategy with a longer view in mind. Instead of putting all of their eggs in promoting precision shooting to just youths, put more effort into promoting to post-college age adults as a lifetime shooting discipline. Adults are less likely to get distracted by members of the opposite sex and academics and can afford to shoot. Retired adults even have the spare time to organize and maintain leagues. If there are more regular matches around, more folks (even young folks are likely to participate. As a side benefit to manufacturers and dealers, childless adults in their late 20s and 30s probably have more disposable income than teens and parents.

Despite the one effort to recruit IPSC/USPSA shooters for International-level Rapid Fire not resulting in anyone shooting internationally competitive scores, I don't think it's hopeless to go after action shooters. However, I think we need to redefine "success." As a discipline in the U.S., I think we need to stop thinking (as USAS seems to) about just finding the next gold medalist, and instead, focus on growing the disciplines at the grassroots level. The idea of a National Governing Body having a laser focus on just finding Olympic shooters reminds of a guy who keeps trying to bench 300lbs once a year without ever going to the gym in between. If we can talk some IDPA/USPSA shooters into semi-regularly participating in precision disciplines, even if they never shoot an MQS in a match, I think that'd still be a success. If they decide to regularly participate, cross-training, or perhaps shooting in winter leagues when it's too cold to shoot IDPA or USPSA outside, even better! Who knows, they might later want their kids to start in precision disciplines to have a good foundation in accuracy.

sparky wrote:I think we need to stop thinking (as USAS seems to) about just finding the next gold medalist, and instead, focus on growing the disciplines at the grassroots level.

+1000

Canada suffers the same. The "Own the Podium"/Reach for Excellence" program certainly put a good number of Canadian athletes in medal positions, but I don't see it as being sustainable.

IMO, successful sports have large grassroots participation from which excellent competitors emerge.

I've posted many times on here and Bullseyeforum about ideas to promote precision shooting, but I don't think I'll ever be much of an influence.

+2000. I'm a big believer that a program needs a wide, firm base. Part of the problem being that if you broaden the base, you wind up with the potential for the people currently on top to not be on top any longer...there's a conflict of interest.

And there's definitely an obsession with the junior shooters...and nothing beyond that save the Olympic team. An assumption that shooting is like the spandex sports, something only for the young. When precisely the opposite is true.

Sorry, but this is sort of a stream of consciousness rant that this thread has evoked from me:

I've been mocked or hounded out of a thread or two for suggesting that bullseye shooters need to put the 2000$ guns away and shoot production guns and commercial ammo along side the regulars more to encourage participation.

Then there's the wonderful introduction to your first competitions: Go lose against the masters until we qualify you lower.
Or, your gun doesn't pass equipment inspection to shoot with the $1000 guns? Congratulations! Shoot in open class against the $4000 guns.

Lots of enthusiastic competition with ADEQUATE equipment will go a long way to supporting the rarefied equipment and practice required for elite competition. To remain in good standing (or to hold onto some different "elite" member designation), clubs should be encouraged (even required) by the associations to have enough equipment on hand to be able to provide a full club shooting line with adequate beginners equipment to run competitions. To remain in good standing, clubs should be encouraged (even required) to hold a minimum number of competitions and report members standings. I'm a member of one SFC affiliated club, but they need it for the insurance. They do nothing to run qualification level competition or report on their activities.

To introduce a new discipline to the sport, the associations should be free to spend their money along with the manufacturers to investigate and innovate. Then alpha-testing of rules and equipment should be held with donated equipment at regional level with clubs that show best participation and respond positively to the proposal. Beta-testing should follow with highly subsidised equipment at national/international level with similar clubs to the alpha-testing. But, focus needs to be at the lowest levels with the most interest until Beta-testing reaches some some minimum level of interest and enthusiasm.

I'll admit to having no clue is such ground up development and promotion was done for rapid-fire AP. The failure does suggest that it wasn't.

USAS and SFC and the Olympic committees seem to have decided that it's their right to exist and that all of society needs to do all of the supporting of their elite athletes. and if they can't find participants, the problem lies with their running of top end competitions, and not the lack of opportunity and promotion at the grassroots level.

Besides the action and accessibility, the local 3-gun and gun-n-run type competitions are crucial to their national and international organisations. Maybe it's simply that as a sport they're still in their enthusiastic youth and fossilisation of the upper echelons has yet to occur. In those sports, innovations and tools developed by the grassroots is adopted internationally. For precision shooting and many Olympic sports, local competition and support is required for an athlete to become Olympic material, but the public, promoters, and sponsors locally aren't treated as much more than an afterthought. Tools that work well locally are ignored and treated by the national and international organisations as maybe a good starting point to develop the "right" tool.

IMO, in a well run organisation, local club competitions need to be mandatory in affiliated clubs with reporting of results, then qualifying an event for regional, provincial/state, national, confederation should bring with it support from the higher levels. Sponsors of a higher level should be buying coverage at all lower levels and supporting all lower levels. The higher level needs to drive the creation and support of events and communication of those events to people who are interested in being competitors. I've been down the rabbit hole of trying to find events and how they fit into the grand scheme of qualifying and been frustrated too many times now.

I think the problem is one of instant gratification, or the lack of it. If you take a glock and hammer a plate rack in 3 seconds, theres the noise, motion and adrenaline involved with contest.... Its fast, easy to do well and even though the difference between 3 seconds flat and 2.7seconds is light years performance wise, when you lose you dont think you did too bad........ Its perception.....
So now we go to a precision event and the winner shot a 545.....you shoot the same 90% of his score, in this case a 490 or 491. Its obvious you got your head handed to you on a golden platter and the logical mind cannot possibly bend the number to look anything other than a bonafide asswhip.
I really think we need to address the fun factor for losers or we never drive participation up. People hate to lose and Pareto says 80% never have any hope, ever, of being a winner........... Oh yeah, Ive never won and still carry the delusion that Maybe, when the planets are aligned correctly that I have it in me to possibly catch all the good guys on an off day and that I can maybe possibly squeek out a win........
The reality is that I truly enjoy shooting excuse proof guns with guys that still occasionally shoot a 6 and say...... Look at that craap, and smile....

spektr wrote:People hate to lose and Pareto says 80% never have any hope, ever, of being a winner...........

Yeah, on Bullseyetalk I got pissy with a sanctimonious oldtimer when they told a member (older gentleman who just bought three good guns to get back into the sport) to put everything but the .22 in the safe and don't bother firing them until he mastered shot process with the .22.
I said what you just did, but perhaps not so nicely. Some people will never, either because they can't or they simply don't want to, advance past marksman. And it's a disgusting disservice to the sport to tell people to bench their enthusiasm and not bother unless they're ready to strive for master through hard work and gruelling practice.

This effect is probably closely related to the downward spiral noted in the previous comments: if the entire sport is focused on the top 0.1%, then everyone has to compare themselves to that 0.1%. If you can somehow increase the number of participants, then suddenly you have a broader spectrum of competitors, the opportunity to compete against others in your "weight class", and have a chance of winning.

Of course, that's coming from someone who has never competed, or even attended a match, because there is nothing nearby! I was lucky enough to find an 'informal' youth marksmanship program for by 9yr old son, but I'm not sure where I would even go within 50 miles if I wanted to participate or he wanted to compete!

marky-d

Dragging the topic back to RF Air, I like the idea - acknowledging that ISSF's concerns about it displacing RF are entirely legitimate.

However, the rules have to be structured to support the logistics. The biggest headache with RF is that the target bays are expensive, and thus scarce. I doubt there's more than 20 of them in the United States.

I'd therefore adopt a three-target setup. Raise, and either fire three shots or six shots. This captures everything that goes on in RF, but if you scale down from a 75cm center-to-center spacing at 25m, you get a target bay that is about 80cm long. Small enough to be built as a single unit that can be transported in a shooter's car. The big question would be whether to make it some sort of a falling plate arrangement, or a paper target (probably turning on the horizontal axis for simplicity). A three-shot two-second string should be do-able.

Logistically the simple answer is to shoot a scaled target at 10 meters that has 5 bulls off a ipsc timer, shooter ready, stand by, beep, get off 5 and check the timer for shot time compliance....... Id do it..... Idea 2 is to shoot a scaled biathlon target or use a summer target sprint setup with an ipsc shot timer

sparky wrote: Despite the one effort to recruit IPSC/USPSA shooters for International-level Rapid Fire not resulting in anyone shooting internationally competitive scores, I don't think it's hopeless to go after action shooters. However, I think we need to redefine "success."
If we can talk some IDPA/USPSA shooters into semi-regularly participating in precision disciplines, even if they never shoot an MQS in a match, I think that'd still be a success. If they decide to regularly participate, cross-training, or perhaps shooting in winter leagues when it's too cold to shoot IDPA or USPSA outside, even better! Who knows, they might later want their kids to start in precision disciplines to have a good foundation in accuracy.

My suggestion has been to ask USPSA to add two or three 'standards' that represent Olympic sports. It would not be hard to replicate International Rapid Fire or Sport Pistol in a shooting bay. I do that with my collegiate action shooting team. http://www.WildGats.com That data would be useful and potentially shared with USAshooting. It might find some talent. At the very least it would give the shooting community better insight into the challenge of Olympic sports and that would drive Olympic interest and increase the number of viewers.

marky-d wrote:This effect is probably closely related to the downward spiral noted in the previous comments: if the entire sport is focused on the top 0.1%, then everyone has to compare themselves to that 0.1%. If you can somehow increase the number of participants, then suddenly you have a broader spectrum of competitors, the opportunity to compete against others in your "weight class", and have a chance of winning.

I don't see too many basketball players on school grounds who expect to go home with the NBA trophy. Any sport where you have entry level guys coming into it, there's a virtually zero chance of them winning anything.

That said, I do think there's something of a disconnect between the entry level guys looking for experience and/or guidance, and the better shooters. I'm not saying that the better shooters are an unfriendly lot - actually the opposite, for the most part - but I suspect it's somewhat intimidating for a new guy to break the ice with someone who is seriously working on their shooting.

I joined a club that is trying to do something about that. We have a monthly "match" (it's largely a match against your prior scores - no winner/loser, no prizes) that started out with air rifle and pistol, with two classes: Standard (should probably be called "standardish"), which is offhand, unsupported; and Open, which is largely anything goes (two hands, off the bench, closer targets, whatever.) We have recently added rimfire (rifle and pistol), with the same classes. The idea was mostly to get people to get out shooting, and have introductions and opportunity to open the discussions about technique, procedures, and whatever else they were interested in. It has worked in a few cases, but has not been as wide-reaching as much as we'd hoped for.

No, they don't expect to win against an NBA team, but they can work on being the best in their neighborhood, or join the HS team, etc.

Your matches sound like a great idea. My son has been going to a very informal smallbore program, and although he enjoys it, I see a lot of other kids come once or twice, then never again. And even among the few 'regulars', there is little social interaction or feeling of camaraderie. Everyone just shows up, shoots a round, then leaves. I was considering suggesting we start keeping track of scores, to try to provide an indication of improvement, but also some healthy competition.

But I don't know if that would have an overall positive, or negative, effect!

marky-d

divingin wrote:

marky-d wrote:This effect is probably closely related to the downward spiral noted in the previous comments: if the entire sport is focused on the top 0.1%, then everyone has to compare themselves to that 0.1%. If you can somehow increase the number of participants, then suddenly you have a broader spectrum of competitors, the opportunity to compete against others in your "weight class", and have a chance of winning.

I don't see too many basketball players on school grounds who expect to go home with the NBA trophy. Any sport where you have entry level guys coming into it, there's a virtually zero chance of them winning anything.

That said, I do think there's something of a disconnect between the entry level guys looking for experience and/or guidance, and the better shooters. I'm not saying that the better shooters are an unfriendly lot - actually the opposite, for the most part - but I suspect it's somewhat intimidating for a new guy to break the ice with someone who is seriously working on their shooting.

I joined a club that is trying to do something about that. We have a monthly "match" (it's largely a match against your prior scores - no winner/loser, no prizes) that started out with air rifle and pistol, with two classes: Standard (should probably be called "standardish"), which is offhand, unsupported; and Open, which is largely anything goes (two hands, off the bench, closer targets, whatever.) We have recently added rimfire (rifle and pistol), with the same classes. The idea was mostly to get people to get out shooting, and have introductions and opportunity to open the discussions about technique, procedures, and whatever else they were interested in. It has worked in a few cases, but has not been as wide-reaching as much as we'd hoped for.

Are you kidding me? Half the middle schoolers playing basketball on a public court on any given weekend probably dream about playing in NBA. Having huge grassroots participation means a much deeper pool of talent to draw from. Having virtually no grassroots participation means your potential gold medal winning pistol shooters might never never take up a shooting, so their talent goes undiscovered.

I do like your match ideas though.

marky-d wrote:And even among the few 'regulars', there is little social interaction or feeling of camaraderie.

First club I joined was often filled with old regulars just there to talk and then go out for a beer after club closing. Many of the people shooting were there for the same reason, but they shot their guns just for fun.

Current club is a store, and the range. Not nice to sit in the store as clients are served and nowhere else to sit and talk with other members.

Ranges IMO need to foster a true "club" environment. Look at how many people go to a golf club to eat, drink, meet other members, and only occasionally play golf. Shooting venues need the same feel.

SlartyBartFast wrote:Ranges IMO need to foster a true "club" environment. Look at how many people go to a golf club to eat, drink, meet other members, and only occasionally play golf. Shooting venues need the same feel.

Bring capital to invest. I've been to clubs like that in Europe. We held the 2014 World Muzzle-Loading Championships in Las Gabias, Spain...a week after the same range hosted the ISSF World Championships. Clubhouse, enough space to hold the closing banquet (with ~500 people)...a country club with a range instead of a golf course. The German range in Pforzheim is similar. But it's not cheap.

Years ago, I was a guest non verman member of the Phoenix Club in So Cal. They are a German Social Club that happens to have an Airgun Range...

Mike M. wrote:Bring capital to invest. I've been to clubs like that in Europe. We held the 2014 World Muzzle-Loading Championships in Las Gabias, Spain...a week after the same range hosted the ISSF World Championships. Clubhouse, enough space to hold the closing banquet (with ~500 people)...a country club with a range instead of a golf course. The German range in Pforzheim is similar. But it's not cheap.

I've told the old timers at the club that gun owners are cheap many times. Gun owners will spend thousands on equipment but look for the cheapest club membership. These guys in particular often have tens of thousands of dollars in equipment but never wanted to raise the annual membership cost from the 120$ it had been for years.
Golfers, sailors, curlers, all will spend thousands on membership association fees, annual fees, annual bar and food tabs. Heck people join those clubs as associate members that don't play or sail.
For capital, I suggested that we make a business plan and find 100 founders at 5k each and go to the bank for a business loan to build a real club. The president and others poo-poo'd the idea. The president is looking for a warehouse operator with spare space and to build on the very cheap using containers. Enough to burn through the club bank account and maybe give the old guys somewhere to shoot before going for a beer until they die. Ugh.