TargetTalk

I've wondered lately how much of an improvement an excellent shooter sees by moving from, say, a FWB 65 to the latest from Steyr or Morini or pick your favorite. In other words, assuming equal familiarity with the guns, what sort of point boost would the shooter get by switching from the best available 40 - 50 years ago to the best available today? Any yes, this is just idle curiosity, the stuff of internet forums! I myself am not worthy of either, though I am lucky enough to have a FWB on long-term loan ...

I don't find a lot of detail in match results from long ago, so it left me wondering if folks were hitting the 10 ring in the 70s with anything like the frequency they do today.

[ old pistols are still good

For most of us the precision of the compared competition guns is irrelevant: we are what affects the precision of the shot.

More than a problem with accuracy my concern with old guns is if they can still work reliably and if there are pieces easily available in case anything breaks. Old guns pieces are very hard to come by.

In case you want to check older targets, take into account that the size has changed:

the target for air pistol was reduced in size in 1989, also lowering the scores (although not by much), and thereby resetting all records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_10_meter_air_pistol

What the hell are you guys trying to do?

Here we have folks springing for the latest spendy, farkle-laden toys in the vain hope of buying a few points, and you are disabusing them of this notion.

In the meantime, we are winning with our old tech stuff because we are not at a disadvantage.

In 1990 it needed a 579 to get 8th place in the AP60 Qualification stage at the World Championships.

In the last few World Championships you needed 581/582 for the same position.

Equipment or training?

If you compare the test targets of older air pistols to the new ones, there isn't much difference. The two major improvement are compressed gas and ergonomics/adjustability. Those can make it easier for a shooter to access the fundamental accuracy of the barrel.

The compressed gas saves a bit of work, but it also allows you to concentrate more on just shooting. Modern high end pistols have better grips with more adjustability, more trigger adjustments, weights for balance, as well as features like adjustable width rear sight notches etc. Some of these could be obtained for older pistols as accessories, but some modifications required a bit of mechanical skill & ingenuity on the part of the owner or gunsmith.

as someone who doesn't know diddley about pistol shooting, I've always heard that "It's the Indian, not the arrow."

40xguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:52 am as someone who doesn't know diddley about pistol shooting, I've always heard that "It's the Indian, not the arrow."

Perhaps true, but if one arrow draws back the bowstring for you....

Gwhite wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:41 am If you compare the test targets of older air pistols to the new ones, there isn't much difference. The two major improvement are compressed gas and ergonomics/adjustability. Those can make it easier for a shooter to access the fundamental accuracy of the barrel.

The compressed gas saves a bit of work, but it also allows you to concentrate more on just shooting. Modern high end pistols have better grips with more adjustability, more trigger adjustments, weights for balance, as well as features like adjustable width rear sight notches etc. Some of these could be obtained for older pistols as accessories, but some modifications required a bit of mechanical skill & ingenuity on the part of the owner or gunsmith.

Sounds like a FWB 80.

This sounds like car guys talking about whether carburetors are actually better than those newfangled fuel injectors. Technology advances. Old tech can work pretty darn well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find new ways to do things.

A good barrel with good pellets will make a good test target from a vise, no matter what you use to push the pellet. It's pretty much just physics at that point. While I haven't shot many PCP pistols, I remember when I was training for nationals in college that I was always able to stay consistent longer with FP than with AP (qualified in free, not in air), and it was mostly due to the effort. Cocking an SSP after every shot, and fighting the heavier weight of it, made me start pulling shots faster. I think that's really what can separate new guns from old - springers and SSPs require more force and concentration to load, and that, at least for me, was detrimental. In addition, the total weight can go down - compact model PCPs can be well under a kilo, but the lightest springer or SSP I've heard of is still in the 1.1 kilo range (please correct me if I'm wrong here), other than the not-particularly-adjustable Gamo Compact. Depending on the shooter's strength, that could be significant.

As a final thought, from a "health of the sport" perspective, new PCP tech is absolutely better. Bring in a new shooter and have them shoot a FWB 65 or 80, then a IZH 46 or FWB 103, then a CM162 or a LP10. In my mind, at least, you're more likely to retain them shooting a PCP vs a springer or SSP. If someone walks away thinking "that was so much effort" they may not come back. Plus, most new guns are often quite pretty, and while very competitive shooters would use the ugliest gun imaginable if it worked extremely well (*cough* Toz-35M *cough*), most of us do care about aesthetics also.

David Levene wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:36 am In 1990 it needed a 579 to get 8th place in the AP60 Qualification stage at the World Championships.

In the last few World Championships you needed 581/582 for the same position.

Equipment or training?

I was wondering that a couple of weeks ago myself.
When my kid first started shooting sporter air rifle at the end of 2015, you only needed a 522 for EIC points.
Then, the next two years is jumped up to 530.
Now it's 535.