TargetTalk

May be another option: to buy a CM84E "barreled action", i.e a naked pistol, without grip and any accessories. The price of such a thing should be close to the price of a good/tuned TOZ.

Lots of good alternative ideas.

I'm leaning toward applying "Reliability Centered Maintenance" principles to the problem though:

- Stuff that never breaks you don't need.
- Stuff that breaks infrequently and with non-fatal outcomes you don't need.
- Stuff that breaks infrequently and with fatal outcomes you *might* need
- Stuff that breaks frequently and with non-fatal outcomes you *might* need
- Stuff that breaks frequently with fatal consequences you *will* need

So, according to Frequency and Severity, how would we rate

- Barrel: Never/Fatal
- Frame: Never/Fatal
- Grip: Never/Inconvenient
- Action, large components: Never/Fatal
- Action, hardware (springs, screws, etc): Almost Never/Sometimes Fatal
- Sights: Never/Fatal
- Electronics, photosensory subsystem: Almost Never, inconvenient
- Electronics, frame mounted: Never, Fatal
- Electronics, grip mounted: Almost Never, Fatal
- Batteries: Replace on Failure item

The key philosophy of RCM is that if you have a really reliable belt you don't generally need a belt *and* suspenders.

I am intrigued by recommendations to keep various scews and bits around.

When I go to a match, I won't generally be adjusting or fiddling with things- unless they break. Those things don't generally break- unless you are fiddling with them. E.g., I don't remove my barrel shroud or front sight. So why would I need anything having to do with the barrel shround or front sight?

Am I wrong?

Comments?

There are various answers because there are various mindsets. One of the most important things to know, is your personal answer to the following question:

Why are you going to the match?

For example, the following responses will all provide different answers to the backup equipment list:

1. You are going to the match to win.
2. You are going to the match to perform your best.
3. You are going to the match to shoot.

If your answer is number 1, you don't need to be playing around tying to overcome the distraction of servicing your equipment. Although the comeback story of how an athlete overcame huge odds to win makes good news and dramatic movies, the winner is most often the one that stayed in their game with the least distractions to overcome.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
Air Force Shooting Homepage
Bullseye (and International) Competition Things

Do you want to be the best and win, or do you just want to be there and have excuses why you didn't win? If it is mechanical it can and eventually will have a failure.

Ed:

I find it very interesting (have been cogitating over it for the last few days) that you list

- Doing your best
- Winning

as two separable things.

Me personally- FWIW- have come to the conclusion (after thinking about it for the last four years or so) that Yes, they are indeed separate but probably not in the way you suggest?

Doing your best you can control. Doing your best should be your only goal- on any given day- the best you can do is to shoot up to your potential.

*Improving your potential* is something you can do with intense, focused training over a longer period of time.

I think we have discussed and agreed on this before?

Now as to "Winning" that is somewhat independent of your personal achievement or potential. At any given match, you could win or lose with the same exact score.

O.K., as to equipment- if you want to do your best yes, you need to have reliable primarry and secondary equipment that you can easily swap between.

I get your point that if I want to truly be prepared to do my best, I need to buy another gun identical to my first gun.

If I want to win I have to take actions that reduce the ability of other competitors to do their best- and that is something I will not ever do. I have established a reputation for helping other competitors do their own best, sometimes at a hazard of my being able to do my own best.

I'm *very* comfortable with that.

"If I want to win I have to take actions that reduce the ability of other competitors to do their best-"

really.....i thought that the way to win was to spend more time on the range and be prepared to shoot better scores than my competiton???

Anonymous wrote:"If I want to win I have to take actions that reduce the ability of other competitors to do their best-"

really.....i thought that the way to win was to spend more time on the range and be prepared to shoot better scores than my competiton???

No, don't you remember that ice skated that had her opposition whacked on the knee with an iron bar. We could do the same!

Hi Steve,

Doing something detrimental to another competitor was not considered, nor is it condoned. So we shall leave that subject by the wayside...

I do submit, however, that there is a difference between going to a match to win and going there to do your best. The latter leaves room for excuses and acceptance of less than optimum due to "extenuating circumstances."

I've shot with Brian Zins when he has had equipment/ammo issues and he still won the matches. I've shot with others who "did their best, under the circumstances." I've shot with some friends who bring a basket of excuses to every competition. They always do the best they can, "considering they had to drive 90 miles per hour to make it," and "couldn't get to bed before 3:30," and... I try to steer clear of them until after the tally.

Personally, as one example, I've stepped up my performance to overcome a bold error so I could still win, when I could have just accepted it as fate. Specifically, I fired a miss in a Free Pistol match on the 51st shot because I took a break and didn't get back into my routine properly. Instead of just accepting it, I decided that 9 tens would give me the same score as 10 nines would have. I'm not sure they were all tens, but they were all good and I did win, with a score equal to or a little above my average. Perhaps I was just doing too well that day and the miss was to slow me back to normal. (Or, was it possibly metaphysical? Maybe material for a separate thread?)

Partly, I'm suggesting that if you are going to a match to win, you will do all the extras that will give you the best chance. If you are going there to do your best, you will skip those things that "don't really matter." If you are going to a match to win, you might start with a new battery, whereas if you are going there to do your best, you might just change it during the match, if needed. I also believe that there is a difference in mindset if you are going to a match to win. Will you win? Maybe not, but you will probably do your best.

As to failures, what would have the least impact on your performance - taking the time to swap out a part on your primary gun or switching to a backup that needs zeroing? Or worse, swapping to a gun that you know you've never matched your primary with, performance-wise. Actually, these all present their own issues and only the individual can determine which route will be the best for them.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
Air Force Shooting Homepage
Bullseye (and International) Competition Things

We completely agree- again- but for the semantics.

How can you "do your best" (shoot to your potential) if you don't do everything possible to optimize your performance?

I would argue that those examples you gave (people sabotaging their own performance, but then rationalizing that they "did their best") were of delusional people who were nowhere near to performaing up to their potentials.

And you train hard in order to increase your potential performance . . . and then shoot up to that potential in order to maximize your performance on that day . . . and whether or not you win has a whole bunch of other stuff- totally outside your control unless you cheat- that is at least as important (if not more) than your own personal performance.

In other words

Just because Zins shows up and brings his "A" game should have no impact whatsoever on your shooting a personal best.

You should be prepared to "Bring It" regardless of whether you will ultimately win or lose.

Philosophically, you will never win if you always give up before you start, simply because something truly outside your control will make it harder for you to "win."

Coming back to the issue of hardware (as opposed to the mental and metaphysical issues that Ed and Steve like to delve into from time to time LoL)...

Ed raised a very important point, and one that deserves emphasis here. If you're going to have a backup gun, then you need to be 100% confident in that pistol. As an example, I used to travel with my TOZ as backup. I would regularly train with the Morini, then part way through training break out the TOZ and continue shooting the string of shots. Admittedly, this training technique was stressless because I shot the TOZ when I chose to, not when my primary gun failed and I was forced to use my backup gun.

With this technique I found that I could almost certainly count on the first shot from the TOZ being a solid 9. The result of training in this manner was a very high level of confidence in my backup gun. Now that I'm shooting the Hammerli 150 as my primary gun it's time for me to start working the Morini back into my training regimen in the same manner as I used the TOZ previously.

Ed;

Let me say that I have read many of your writings and I have a profound respect for your knowledge and wisdom of shooting. I agree with your post above, to a point. I think it boils down to perspective.

Let me put it this way: I attended a clinic put on by Brian Zins and Andy Moody. Meeting Brian Zins, I immediately noticed that he has a very focused personality, and is a very concrete thinker. He's also not that much of a "gun guy". I feel that he is primarily a competitor, that is to say, extrinisically rather than internally motivated. He simply IS the best at what he does. If not, he works mercilessly to correct the situation until he is. I feel that if he had not found shooting, he would have found extreme success in another competitive sport, be it NASCAR or tournament bass fishing, or whatever.

I, and probably Steve Swartz, am more intrinsically motivated. I want and need to do MY best. Unlike Brian Zins, and more like Steve, I am a highly abstract thinker. (During the clinic, Brian said several times, "don't think; DO!") I feel I can't control how anyone else does in a match; in fact, I think it's detrimental FOR ME to worry about it. Therefore, I go to a match to shoot my personal best score, no excuses allowed.

I really appreciate your point of view stated above, since I am intrinsically motivated, I could see myself falling into the trap you mentioned, although I don't think I typically do. (I know I frequently did so a young slacker) A while back, I had a double-alibi in a match, completely .22 ammo related, and I had to emotionally roll with it. Did I use it as a cop out for my performance in the match? I don't know, that's something I have to chew on. I DID shoot well, though excluding those misses, both before and after the incident. I was scoring targets with a well known, nationally ranked shooter, who was quite congratulatory of my expert-level shooting. When I had the double-alibi, I tried to shrug it off with an "oh well", in order to continue to focus on shooting my best. I was a little taken aback when he somewhat harshly excoriated me to "make sure your s**t works". I realize now that his perspective is that of a competitor; mine, perhaps is that of a shooter. Can I, or should I, change my attitude? I think that I'm getting out of shooting what I want, which is to challenge myself to do better.

I will take care in the future to make sure I keep the mindset "I came here to shoot a master-level score (95%) and I will do that, no matter what". (I'm currently shooting high expert scores, so that's a stretch goal for me)

Thank you for your perspective.

-John

John:

"Intrinsically Motivated" does not mean "Unable to Compete."

Quite the opposite, as a amatter of fact.

The "Intrinsically Motivated" competitor has a goal of shooting 60 10.9s in a row . . .

The "Extrinsically Motivated" competitor has a lesser goal . . . like shooting a new world record . . . or winning gold in the olympics . . . or some other chupchik result.

Think about it- how difficult is it really to beat every other competitor?

How difficult is it to beat yourself- or the discipline itself?

Sorry. Too cerebral for most folks.

You should be seeking perfection, not "doing better than the next guy."

That was indeed a declarative statement; therefore, "Your Mileage May Vary!"

If your intention is to win then the optimal solution is to buy a second pistol the same as your main gun, anything other than that is a compromise. What we are now talking about is making a compromise that could cost you winning for the sake of saving a few hundred dollars which is really kinda of silly.

Steve;

I think the intrinsically motivated CAN be winners, but typically no. You (and I) can control our internal pressure to succeed according to our own definitions; competitors cannot. They either do, or don't.

Let me put it this way. If I NEEDED to be the top of my game, I could get a job that would allow me to train 20+ hours a week. I could travel most weekends and shoot matches. If I had the need to compete and win to high degree, I could rapidly max out my ability to shoot. But I don't. I have a wife and kids, and a demanding job. I shoot league every other week, and local matches twice a year. I balance shooting between these other important things in my life. Therefore, I make and accept compromises in my shooting which keep me back from my full potential. I am satified with my slow and sometimes fitful progress toward master-level scores. I'm happy with those compromises, because they allow for other things in my life that give me satisfaction, but "distract" me from my shooting. The struggle I have is to not allow myself more psychological cop-outs that I already do. IE, I set personal expectations and goals that I'm working toward, and not let myself off the hook for not attaining them.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is the severity of the pressure one puts on oneself. The competitors put alot on themselves, the intrinsically motivated are likely more gradualist. The nugget I'm getting out of this sub-thread is Ed Hall is right, you have to watch it to keep from allow yourself a cop-out.

I think this aspect, from someone who's intrinsically motivated, is another psychological aspect to this sport (and life) which I find fascinating.

To answer your point, I think an intrinsically motivated person CAN compete, but in the end they're doing it mostly for themselves and their own satisfaction, and therefore winning is personal, not competitive.

-John

These are mostly great excursions into the ID but will not win a match. Simplify , Simplify , Simplify. Think about only those things that have the potential to inprove your shooting performance and the closer you get to the competition start removing all those thoughts that are perifial to the task at hand. IE Hold the pistol stiller, apply pressure to the trigger more steadily, Align the sights more perfectly before the pistol fires and finally, let the pistol fire itself. If you are not sure what that means contact Russ and get some good training. KISS. Good Shooting Bill Horton

2650 Plus wrote:These are mostly great excursions into the ID but will not win a match. Simplify , Simplify , Simplify. Think about only those things that have the potential to inprove your shooting performance and the closer you get to the competition start removing all those thoughts that are perifial to the task at hand. IE Hold the pistol stiller, apply pressure to the trigger more steadily, Align the sights more perfectly before the pistol fires and finally, let the pistol fire itself. If you are not sure what that means contact Russ and get some good training. KISS. Good Shooting Bill Horton

What does this have to do with the original question regarding a back-up free pistol?

My Post had to do with the deviation that had already occured. The conversation had wandered far afield from the orriginal post and had become an exercise in semantics IMHO. Good Shooting Bill Horton

I find it hard to use TWO free pistols, if I shoot bad it is easy to take the other gun instead of working with the problem.
One thing I have not seen mentioned here is IMHO very important though; Learn very well what every screw does and how the trigger works.
I am surprised about how shooters sometimes have not a clue of the mechanics in the gun.
I have one spare part for the free pistol (FP60) and that is a complete breech block assembly, easy to change, no pin to drift. It is good for other modern Hammerli too if a shooter have trouble he can use my spare part and continue. After all it is a sport thing and I do not like to win because an opponents broken gun.

Kent

Reinhamre wrote:I find it hard to use TWO free pistols, if I shoot bad it is easy to take the other gun instead of working with the problem.
One thing I have not seen mentioned here is IMHO very important though; Learn very well what every screw does and how the trigger works.
I am surprised about how shooters sometimes have not a clue of the mechanics in the gun.
I have one spare part for the free pistol (FP60) and that is a complete breech block assembly, easy to change, no pin to drift. It is good for other modern Hammerli too if a shooter have trouble he can use my spare part and continue. After all it is a sport thing and I do not like to win because an opponents broken gun.

Kent

I agree Kent, I've been to events where national team members from different countries don't have a clue how to adjust their trigger weight when it fails equipment check. They don't even have the manuals with then either.

jjh wrote:If an el. TOZ exists, then...

You will laughing, but I know one. Friend of mine, sydney-2000 fp-finalist, has tested one.

In exUSSR, TOZ is only thing... only raw material... In US you pay money, in exUSSR you get one in free-usage in your home shooting-club, as ownership of fire-arms (short-barrel) is forbidden there.

Also, what i wanted to say... there they have possibilities for tests (but not for beginners of course). For example, my friend, got approx. 8-10 TOZs from depository during last 3-4 years for tests. He has maked it shorter, drilled barrel (from muzzle in bolt's direction), maked sighting line higher and lower.

And show-down... he has sacrificed one CM84E (since no one wanted to use it), one or two TOZs, own perfect TOZ's grip - with one aim - to build one TOZ with Morini's electronics. And what is more - pistol worked.. worked fine.

Unfortunately I cannot provide detailed info, as my friend is not a journalist and did not documented on foto each step. Creative above all ;)

Now tests are in past... he uses normal toz, as standard execution does not need any improvements ). It is perfect "as is".

wish you success,