Why Shooting Jackets for Rifle but not Pistol?

[holmqer]

Having started shooting sports with pistols, I was a bit puzzled when trying out rifle matches where pretty much everyone had special shooting jackets, gloves, shoes and sometimes pants.

How did it evolve that rifle matches allow all this special clothing and the pistol matches do not?

I can see the benefit of the garb, I shot a pair of 400 point matches with a borrowed rifle and garb and got 398-21X and 393-27X so the garb was clearly helping me shoot scores much better than I could have without it, it seemed to eliminate the skill advantage some of the other participants had over me. These were the first rifle matches I ever shot. I'm just puzzled why it's even allowed at all.

[Tim S]

Weight is the main reason. A smallbore target rifle typically weighs 14lb, compared to what 2lb for a pistol. Rifle clothing has evolved over many years from light cotton jackets with rubber elbow pads in the 1930s through heavier leather and canvas designs. Sleeveless pistol jackets that supported the torso were around for a while, but were banned in the 1980s I believe.

I would disagree that a jacket eliminates the skill level between shooters. A jacket reduces fatigue, and does improve stability, but won't compensate for poor aim, or poor shot execution, or missing wind changes. Given that almost all rifle competitors wear a jacket, everybody receives the same benefit (providing they buy one that fits) it isn't exclusive. What the clothing does is allow the shooter to concentrate fully on shooting, so talent still wins not physical strength.

As for say gloves, the gloves is really vital to protect the supporting hand in the sling positions. The pressure of a 14lb rifle, and a tight sling, simply is unbearable without the cushioning of a glove.

[Brian Girling]

Pistol waistcoats (and boots) were used for quite a long time upto sometime in the 80s (I am guessing at the date), they were tight fitting but then a rule came in banning tight clothing and nothing on the shoe extending above the ankle bone. No doubt David L can be more explicit.

[JamesH]

Weight is the main reason. A smallbore target rifle typically weighs 14lb, compared to what 2lb for a pistol. Rifle clothing has evolved over many years from light cotton jackets with rubber elbow pads in the 1930s through heavier leather and canvas designs. Sleeveless pistol jackets that supported the torso were around for a while, but were banned in the 1980s I believe.

I would disagree that a jacket eliminates the skill level between shooters. A jacket reduces fatigue, and does improve stability, but won't compensate for poor aim, or poor shot execution, or missing wind changes. Given that almost all rifle competitors wear a jacket, everybody receives the same benefit (providing they buy one that fits) it isn't exclusive. What the clothing does is allow the shooter to concentrate fully on shooting, so talent still wins not physical strength.

As for say gloves, the gloves is really vital to protect the supporting hand in the sling positions. The pressure of a 14lb rifle, and a tight sling, simply is unbearable without the cushioning of a glove.

It would still be a level playing field if no-one had jackets, rifles may have to become lighter, people might have to get their shot off quicker, they might have to be physically stronger.

[David Levene]

No doubt David L can be more explicit.

Unfortunately my rule books going back that far were loaned to someone and not returned, so I cannot give chapter and verse.

Like you though Brian I can remember pistol shooters wearing the tight jackets and ankle supporting footwear until the mid 80s. I would guess that they would have been ruled out in the 1985 rules, after the LA Olympics.

[Tim S]

It would still be a level playing field if no-one had jackets, rifles may have to become lighter, people might have to get their shot off quicker, they might have to be physically stronger.

Meaning that the young, the elderly, those with any injury, or disability are at a massive disadvantage, and anyone who has a rifle has to buy another. There are shooting disciplines that already disallow clothing, so why make the change to smallbore? I'll stick with the clothing thank you.

[JamesH]

The thing to do would have been to do it at the same time the pistol rules were changed, it would be interesting to know why they weren't.

The sport, and equipment, has developed since, a change now would be a big step.

[Tim S]

The thing to do would have been to do it at the same time the pistol rules were changed, it would be interesting to know why they weren't.

The sport, and equipment, has developed since, a change now would be a big step.

Probably because rifle shooters have used this equipment for so long that it was seen as an intrinsic and self-defining part of the sport. In comparison I believe pistol jackets were a short-lived phenomenon.

[Hemmers]

The shooting sports developed out of practical shooting - whether that be military, hunting/quarry shooting, etc.

The ISSF works very hard to maintain a distance from that now, and shuns things such as Practical Shooting (IPSC, USPSA, etc), but go back and that's our heritage. The NRA of Great Britain was founded for the very purpose of promoting marksmanship in support of "Defence of the Realm". It's now a Sports Governing Body, but that's the history.


Rifle kit is a natural development (and civilian refinement) of techniques and equipment developed in those times - the sling on a Lee Enfield is not for carrying the rifle (though it serves that purpose also), but is there as a two-point sling to aid marksmanship.
Elbow pads and sling keepers on jackets developed, especially amongst designated sharp shooters and snipers who had some latitude to customise their working uniforms in pursuit of superior marksmanship.

That has grown into the jackets, gloves, boots and single-point slings you see today. Very different, but you can see the heritage if you look hard enough. The only bits of kit that are genuinely novel are shooting trousers (people may have had knee pads, but not full canvas trousers), and butt hooks, which are unseen outside of competition.

The military side meanwhile has largely ditched slings in favour of bipods (or simply resting the rifle on a wall, sandbag or bergen as available).

If you took the sling, etc away from target rifle and shot entirely unsupported, you would end up with a discipline that does not resemble any known form of shooting - no one has ever (willingly) shot unsupported prone for instance - if they didn't have a sling, they rested the rifle on a rock, wall, fence or bag - whether they were in a war or out hunting.

Corsets or waistcoats to support pistol shooters are an entirely artificial invention developed solely to gain an edge in competition, so were done away. The utility and legitimacy of rifle gear is more easily demonstrated, and has been around a lot longer in one form or another - even if the older style leather or fabric jackets bear little resemblance to today's high-tech canvas, rubber and plastic designs.

[Martin Catley]

Just for interest in the late sixties and early Seventies I was dragged along to our NZ National Deerstalkers annual Champs'. These were held over 75,100 and 200 Yards with the 75 Yards being for .22's and the longer for Rifles with a minimum Cal' of 6mm.

The Rifles were based on sporters with the winners usually having the heavier Barrelled versions. Telescopic sights were the normal but no spotting scopes allowed for some reason. No Slings, no jackets of any sort just shooting off naked elbows. This was shot as a 4P Match off Grass Mounds.

The scores and groups shot by some of the shooters were extraordinary with the odd one keeping in a minute of angle inner Bull at all Ranges Prone.

I think nowadays it has evolved to more like our modern style of shooting.

[j-team]

I would disagree that a jacket eliminates the skill level between shooters. A jacket reduces fatigue, and does improve stability, but won't compensate for poor aim, or poor shot execution, or missing wind changes. Given that almost all rifle competitors wear a jacket, everybody receives the same benefit (providing they buy one that fits) it isn't exclusive. What the clothing does is allow the shooter to concentrate fully on shooting, so talent still wins not physical strength.

As for say gloves, the gloves is really vital to protect the supporting hand in the sling positions. The pressure of a 14lb rifle, and a tight sling, simply is unbearable without the cushioning of a glove.

The only reason the rifles have evolved to be so heavy is because of the support of the jackets, slings and glove. It's a shame that rifle shooting has evolved to be this way, it is less of a test of skill than it could be. More of an equipment race (clothing, rifle and ammo).

[Tim S]

The only reason the rifles have evolved to be so heavy is because of the support of the jackets, slings and glove. It's a shame that rifle shooting has evolved to be this way, it is less of a test of skill than it could be. More of an equipment race (clothing, rifle and ammo).

Again I disagree. Rifle weight hasn't appreciably changed since the 1950s; a 14lb BSA Mk II was heavy then, and is heavy now. Yet super stiff jackets weren't around in the 1950s; in Britain a tweed blazer or ex-army battledress blouse was the norm.

[Martin Catley]

Hi Tim totally agree with your stance. When I started I learnt to shoot with a BSA Century at the age of Seven over a rest which disappeared when I was about Ten or earlier. Old Blazers and Army Great Coats were the norm with Elbow Pads and some times Sling Hooks on the arm and of course two point slings, wasn't it great when single point slings came out. Those two point ones really tied you in though! I seem to remember my Father talking about a three point attachment for Rifles which was only allowed for Veterans.

Personally I think it has been a privilege to have been around over this period to be a part of the evolution of Smallbore.

It only makes sense to give the Body some support these days especially in 3P where injury to the Spine in particular was common.

[Trooperjake]

I was a rifle shooter for 40 years, shot ISU, now ISSF, NRA smallbore and air rifle.
I went thru the evolution of super heavy to the coats now in use.
8 years ago I switched to pistol and air pistol, because of a health issue.
There is no way I would want to wear a leather jacket, or cloth jacket, adding weight
to my arm as I aim.
Plus the pull from the shoulder. Plus I don't need anything tight on my waist.

ISSF shoes are an advantage over sneakers or street shoes.

[dschaller]

If all the ISSF coats, pants, belts, and other expensive specialized clothing didn't improve performance, then I would be willing to bet that the top shooters wouldn't be wearing it. It has evolved to the point it is (with many, many restrictions due to performance enhancing creep), and one huge result is the need to change to decimal scoring to allow meaningful separation of scores between shooters.

An unintended new cost of the expensive clothing is that now 3P .22 rewards group size that is significantly smaller than most top level guns are capable of attaining. This will results in an equipment race to try and obtain .22 rifles (and ammo) that can group consistent 10.9 scores. With 10x currently costing $20 a box, and guns that are $4k or more, where do you think that will end up? As a pistol shooter, all I can say is the rifle shooters have brought this onto themselves.

On the other hand, if they had taken away all the specialized clothing, the scores would drop, there would be more separation of scores between shooters, top guns could all shoot "10s", and we could still have a scoring system that makes sense to non-experts. Repeatedly rifle shooters insist that the specialized clothing is for health, but at the same time, padding under your elbows or other stressed points is prohibited, and we have pants so stiff you can't even sit down or walk without unzipping the legs.

[Trooperjake]

The question on this forum is why don't pistol shooters use coats and shoes like rifle shooters.

When the ISU went from super heavy coats with straps, to a 3 button lite coat, everyone screamed, they would not be able to shoot without there heavy clothes.

Within a year every record was broken with the lighter cloths.

I don't ever remember a pistol shooter using a coat, I do seem to recall some wearing a shotgun style vest.

[Spencer]

...I don't ever remember a pistol shooter using a coat, I do seem to recall some wearing a shotgun style vest.

I can!
Particularly for RFP - back in the 60's there were tight-fitting leather jackets with corset style lacing that made the shooting arm 'float' out from the body - coming to the READY was an interesting exercise.

[holmqer]

I never realized there was so much history behind the use of all the garb associated with rifle shooting, it has been very interesting reading, thanks.

When I spoke of the garb seeming to eliminate some of the skill benefit the experience rifle shooters had over me, it came from my pistol perspective.

I got into shooting sports via our local corporate Bullseye league, where I shot a pistol for the first time a year ago. We shoot a 300 point national match course with 22LR. Every year 10 or 20 new shooters join the league and typically start off in the 60 to 100 point range and if they keep at it, break 200 within a year or two. The experts have averages in the 280s. After a year, my average is up to 240s with maybe 5 Xs.

Going into the smallbore rifle match, I had played with a .223 and shot a few boxes of ammo for fun on a weekend, and never shot a smallbore rifle. I took 10 practice shots with no garb, and was all over the paper with a borrowed rifle. Then I borrowed some garb that sort of fit me and tried a 40 shot match getting 398-21X the first match and 393-27X the second match. This put me in the middle of the pack of folks who had done this for years.

I had expected something like my introduction to pistol where I would have started off shooting 20% to 33% (100 to 133 points) then if I kept at it, improved into the 300s after a year. Instead with a 30 year old Winchester 52 I was shooting 99% score and 50% plus Xs with no real previous rifle experience. This totally perplexed me as I am by no means gods gift to marksmanship. It just seemed to me that the equipment was doing all the work, and I was along for the ride.

[Tim S]

On the other hand, if they had taken away all the specialized clothing, the scores would drop, there would be more separation of scores between shooters, top guns could all shoot "10s", and we could still have a scoring system that makes sense to non-experts. Repeatedly rifle shooters insist that the specialized clothing is for health, but at the same time, padding under your elbows or other stressed points is prohibited, and we have pants so stiff you can't even sit down or walk without unzipping the legs.

I disagree. Top shots who are young and physically fit might be able to shoot similar scores on a larger target, but it would destroy the sport for those who aren't as strong. Currently, especially in prone anyone of any age can be competitive; even with lighter rifles, physical strength will give a massive advantage (and body building is not the answer). There already exist disciplines that don't allow the heavy clothing, which folks can shoot if they so wish. The clothing is as much a part of the game as anatomically formed pistol grips in 10m air or 50m free pistol.

By the way padding under the elbows isn't prohibited. It is regulated minutely, but that is not the same as prohibited.

[Tim S]

It just seemed to me that the equipment was doing all the work, and I was along for the ride.

I think you rather undersell yourself. Equipment is important to a degree the jacket has to fit in certain critical areas, and rifle and ammo need to be good), but human talent is still the deciding factor. The kit won't compensate for not being able to align the sights with the target stress-free, not for a wobbly hold, nor for poor trigger release, poor breathing technique, or not being able to read the wind on outdoor ranges. I've seen many novice shooters using reasonable equipment shoot groups that barely fit the target because they had not mastered the basic techniques of shooting.

There was a discussion on the pistol forum last year that concluded that pistol shooters tend to be better rifle shooters, than rifle shooters make as pistol shooters.