: I made my comment re cheaper rifles with toungue firmly planted in cheek. It simply isn't going to happen.
Unfortunately, the 4-H didn't and it did happen. They guy it happened to sets down from me at work. He intends to write when he get some time. He's still filling out his Coach's test.
Mike
Wichita KS
mschroeder5-at-cox.net.48692.48639
Jacket and Pants Issue
Moderators: rexifelis, pilkguns
-
Mark Dennehy
Re: The Benjamins
:Should I turn them away? Should I load them up with a rifle that's too heavy for them to shoot and snap their spines?
:Which is better for the kids and the shooting sports in general?
:Which is better for the coaches who want to say they have a shooter in the Olympics?
:Heck the choice is simple for me, get as many kids shooting as possible, having fun and not damaging their bodies or pyche by immediately being "out slassed" by guys with the same rifles but the extra $1800 in clothes it takes to be "competative".
I realise that it's not a solution for rifle shooting, but with your budget and aims, have you considered shooting 10m olympic air pistol instead of air rifle? Here in Ireland that's not an option for us for legal reasons, but if you're in the US that shouldn't be a problem. And pistol has many advantages over rifle for starting kids off - that's why the Tetrathlon uses air pistol for it's shooting programme. From air pistol you can "graduate" the kids to air rifle at a later date when they're old enough that spinal damage is not as large a risk, and they have shown the interest that justifies the financial outlay. (That's not to say you won't need more money, but successful programmes often get more grants to expand than new ones do to begin).
Were I you, with your options, I would invest in a large number of reasonable beginner pistols, some DIY supplies to build shooting stalls rather than normal firing points (for safety), and electric target changers and perhaps shooting frames for glasses - but there, I wouldn't buy them outright. Instead a subsidy-style arrangement where we cover half the cost of the frames for kids who've been shooting for a while and are serious about continuing would be the approach I'd take (and maybe buy them outright in hardship cases).
Air pistol is the best entry path to the shooting sports that I can think of - and hopefully later this year we'll be able to use it ourselves in Ireland for the first time in over thirty years. (Fingers crossed...)
mark.dennehy-at-cs.tcd.ie.48760.48574
:Which is better for the kids and the shooting sports in general?
:Which is better for the coaches who want to say they have a shooter in the Olympics?
:Heck the choice is simple for me, get as many kids shooting as possible, having fun and not damaging their bodies or pyche by immediately being "out slassed" by guys with the same rifles but the extra $1800 in clothes it takes to be "competative".
I realise that it's not a solution for rifle shooting, but with your budget and aims, have you considered shooting 10m olympic air pistol instead of air rifle? Here in Ireland that's not an option for us for legal reasons, but if you're in the US that shouldn't be a problem. And pistol has many advantages over rifle for starting kids off - that's why the Tetrathlon uses air pistol for it's shooting programme. From air pistol you can "graduate" the kids to air rifle at a later date when they're old enough that spinal damage is not as large a risk, and they have shown the interest that justifies the financial outlay. (That's not to say you won't need more money, but successful programmes often get more grants to expand than new ones do to begin).
Were I you, with your options, I would invest in a large number of reasonable beginner pistols, some DIY supplies to build shooting stalls rather than normal firing points (for safety), and electric target changers and perhaps shooting frames for glasses - but there, I wouldn't buy them outright. Instead a subsidy-style arrangement where we cover half the cost of the frames for kids who've been shooting for a while and are serious about continuing would be the approach I'd take (and maybe buy them outright in hardship cases).
Air pistol is the best entry path to the shooting sports that I can think of - and hopefully later this year we'll be able to use it ourselves in Ireland for the first time in over thirty years. (Fingers crossed...)
mark.dennehy-at-cs.tcd.ie.48760.48574
-
Mark Dennehy
Re: The Reason?
: Well, off the top of my head, my response right now is that, that's a legitimate argument, it has some merit; it addresses a concrete issue that can be measured, and the goal is a positive one for the sport (increasing participation).
And my response would be that it's a laudable goal, but the method they're using to achieve it is despicable.
They're risking the health of junior and beginning shooters; they're costing existing shooters large amounts of money (hell, I won't have paid off my loan which paid for my shooting trousers and gear for another few years yet); and they're going to make the firing line even less photogenic than it is now.
The worst aspect of this is that creating an easier entry path for the sport is simply *not* the goal of the ISSF in this - cosying up to the IOC is the goal, and little more. And I'm not happy with the idea of us sacrificing the health of ourselves and those we train for the dubious goal of remaining in the olympic programme, especially when we all know that the factor that makes our sport so marginalised is *not* the funny walk the trousers induce, it is a combination of the sport's participative nature (ie. it's not a spectator sport really), and the socio-political prejudical attitudes most people have against firearms in general. We can't fix the first factor by changing our trousers, and we can't fix the second because *we* are not generally seen as irresponsible (I've yet to hear an anti-gun proponent actually stand up and call olympic target shooters a menace to society, they're generally more upset at the self-defence and hunting types of firearms).
mark.dennehy-at-cs.tcd.ie.48761.48589
And my response would be that it's a laudable goal, but the method they're using to achieve it is despicable.
They're risking the health of junior and beginning shooters; they're costing existing shooters large amounts of money (hell, I won't have paid off my loan which paid for my shooting trousers and gear for another few years yet); and they're going to make the firing line even less photogenic than it is now.
The worst aspect of this is that creating an easier entry path for the sport is simply *not* the goal of the ISSF in this - cosying up to the IOC is the goal, and little more. And I'm not happy with the idea of us sacrificing the health of ourselves and those we train for the dubious goal of remaining in the olympic programme, especially when we all know that the factor that makes our sport so marginalised is *not* the funny walk the trousers induce, it is a combination of the sport's participative nature (ie. it's not a spectator sport really), and the socio-political prejudical attitudes most people have against firearms in general. We can't fix the first factor by changing our trousers, and we can't fix the second because *we* are not generally seen as irresponsible (I've yet to hear an anti-gun proponent actually stand up and call olympic target shooters a menace to society, they're generally more upset at the self-defence and hunting types of firearms).
mark.dennehy-at-cs.tcd.ie.48761.48589