Finals & rule changes

[renzo]

...and now you want millions of people to buy new trousers *and* new rifles? And you've eliminated the value of their old rifles because they're no longer useful for the sport? In the middle of a depression?

Not a good thing for the sport, that...

You may be right in your point, but looking at it from a pistol shooter's point of view, it's franky incomprehensible.

When I started shooting FP and AP (from a backgorund of big bore disciplines) it was the early eighties. Then, pistoleers were allowed to wear ankle-high boots and jackets just like riflemen. Sometime later, jackets were outlawed. Around 1987, boots were outlawed. Then on 01/01/1989, match duration was shortened by 1/2 of an a hour, and all this in two disciplines which had never come EVEN NEAR the maximum possible score (nor are likely to come).

Meanwhile, the equipment race in 50 M Rifle and AR has turned them a budgetary nightmare, and they complain about 600's turning on, and devicing cleverer schemes for match definitions...............

When a young shooter comes to the club I'm president of, I know that loaning him/her one of the CO2 FWB's (worth U$D 400) we have for those occassions, it's all they'll need regarding equipment until they catch National Gold.

Hey, I remember the National championship in my country was won in 1988 (old target, I know) with a 578 score, which will get the old champion in the finals today, and he was shooting a FWB 65!!

But if a youngster wants to shoot rifle, we have to make miracles: ask old/retired shooters to loan or sell jackets and pants that can be "tailored" to suit them, and a whole pletora of gimmicks, amounting a minimum expense of U$D 2000 for starters!!

So maybe it's time to think about it, if "the future of our sport" is what we're aiming at.

[j-team]

...and now you want millions of people to buy new trousers *and* new rifles? And you've eliminated the value of their old rifles because they're no longer useful for the sport?

My point was, that the weight of the rifle causes the back problems. eliminate the heavy rifle and no need for expensive trousers. Current rifles can be made lighter, any decent gunsmith with a lathe can sort that out quite easily.

[j-team]

J-team. After competing with a Walther OSP for many years, I dont intend to spend another $2500 on a pistol that I will only shoot a couple of times a year, if and when I can find a match. Couple that with the price of that ammo and the game becomes cost prohibitive. Since nobody shoots this sport around here, I cannot say for a fact of their recoil properties. However, due to the slower fps ammo, tungsten weights and spring recoil systems, I can conserverately say, its probably a lot less than my Walther GSP. Sorry to insult you, but I do have lots expierence in this game, just not with the new pistols.

No need to appologise, I'm not insulted. If you have no desire or intention to shoot RF ever again, then relax and don't let the fact that it's now shot with a standard pistol upset you. I would have prefered to keep shooting with .22 short, but guess what it's history. I sold my $2000 Pardini GP for $550. I got over it.

[tenx9]

Thats funny. I have enough medals and trophies that like most old people, I'll just ride off into the sunset and remember the good ole days. I already have a Walther GSP and thinking of picking up a Ham 208s, if it doesnt take a mortgage to buy one. Nah!!, I'll keep the OSP, pretty soon the ISSF will change their minds and decide that the .22short impacts the environment less. Hows this, 6ftoot Russian women volleyball players in bikini bottoms shooting .22 shorts in RFP. I think NBC would have a winner. What do ya think?

[tenx9]

J-team.... your missing the point. ITS NOT A STANDARD PISTOL!!!! Lets try this again. 1. Lower velocity ammo 2. Recoil reducing springs 3. tungsten weights 4, Electric triggers. The only thing you have in common with a standard pistol is a 1000gr trigger. Which I'm sure is adjustable 3 ways from Sunday. You make it sound like your shooting a High Standard. Which I did by the way, when I started. Its become a money game plain and simple. Manufacturers needed to sell something different and the ISSF bought it. Simple as that.

[Spencer]

J-team.... your missing the point. ITS NOT A STANDARD PISTOL!!!! Lets try this again. 1. Lower velocity ammo 2. Recoil reducing springs 3. tungsten weights 4, Electric triggers. The only thing you have in common with a standard pistol is a 1000gr trigger. Which I'm sure is adjustable 3 ways from Sunday. You make it sound like your shooting a High Standard. Which I did by the way, when I started. Its become a money game plain and simple. Manufacturers needed to sell something different and the ISSF bought it. Simple as that.

on your points 1 to 4:
1 - RFP has a minimum velocity and projectile weight: you can legally use lower velocity for both Standard Pistol and Womens 25m Pistol
2 - these are allowed and used for both Standard Pistol and Womens 25m Pistol
3 - these are allowed and used for both Standard Pistol and Womens 25m Pistol
4 - these are allowed and used for both Standard Pistol and Womens 25m Pistol
How is an ISSF Rapid Fire Pistol not an ISSF 'standerd' pistol?
(I used my RF pistol and ammunition yesterday to shoot competition in Standard, Sport and Rapid Fire events - it was 'legal' in all)

Edit
To keep tenx9 happy, I don't shoot 'Womens Sport' (sic) either: 25m 'Sport' for both sexes is conducted in many countries.

[tenx9]

So. I'm an old knucklehead. I dont shoot womens sport pistol for obvious reasons. There hasnt been a standard pistol match around here within 200 miles for 10 years. Your lucky to find a match, and get 5 people to shoot it. Maybe in Austrailia its a big deal but here its always been NRA Bullseye shooting. I've been shooting over 20 years and then some, and I think they have done more harm than good. Either that or move to Austrailia. Put another shrimp on the Barby, matey

[Richard H]

Those are all things you CAN have you don't have to have any of them.

His exactly have the ISSF rules negatively impacted NRA Bullseye? The NRA have their own rules.

[Dr. Jim]

Tenx9 I think misses the basic point. Yes, new and specialized pistols have appeared for RF, but that occurred some years after the rule change, and one does NOT need to buy a new pistol to compete, unless of course you are already at WC or Olympic level. For most competitors in Canada, the same pistol is commonly used for standard, rapid and for sport - why not? For nearly twenty years I used a GSP with QD mounts for ISSF and NRA rather than buy yet more specialized pistols. Until you become "elite" one gun will do everything you ask of it.

Dr. Jim aka a Retired Old Fat White Guy

[Sparks]

You may be right in your point, but looking at it from a pistol shooter's point of view, it's franky incomprehensible.

Yeah, but that's because you're only holding one pistol, and I'm holding four (and a bit). Cut the rifle's weight to 25% of what it is now, arrange it so that any recoil isn't offset from the spine but on a line towards it like it is in smallbore pistol, and we can talk about ditching the jackets and trousers.

And don't tell me the expense is what the future of the sport hangs on; I don't see expense putting the future of Golf at risk, or Sailing, or any form of horse riding, or Tennis, or any other sport where equipment and club membership costs can easily rise past the national average annual salary.

[Sparks]

Current rifles can be made lighter, any decent gunsmith with a lathe can sort that out quite easily.

Put simply, I do not believe you are correct; I think what you are asking for there is beyond our current manufacturing abilities (where "our" means "of the entire human race") without coming up with designs that cost more than most mid-size cars.

[renzo]

Yeah, but that's because you're only holding one pistol, and I'm holding four (and a bit). Cut the rifle's weight to 25% of what it is now, arrange it so that any recoil isn't offset from the spine but on a line towards it like it is in smallbore pistol, and we can talk about ditching the jackets and trousers.

And don't tell me the expense is what the future of the sport hangs on; I don't see expense putting the future of Golf at risk, or Sailing, or any form of horse riding, or Tennis, or any other sport where equipment and club membership costs can easily rise past the national average annual salary.

Yes, but you're using two arms to do it and your body, and the only thing that keeps my pistol from hitting the floor are my shoulder muscles, and don't talk about recoil when shooting an air rifle or a .22 LR 15 pound or heavier gun.

I saw (when I was much younger) shooters with much softer jackets and pants, and OBVIOUSLY they didn't use the extremely awkward firing positions in use today, and OBVIOUSLY scores were lower, which gets me to my point: you don't have to break your spine but choose a less compromised body position, with correlating loss of points.

I'm not AGAINST riflemen, but please don't tell me it's impossible to shoot without the current clothes. All that paraphernalia of equipment has lead to the point that without a factory-batch tested barrel (and some tens of thousands of the right lot) even a skilled shooter can´t think of entering a WC final.

Best wishes from Argentina

[Sparks]

Yes, but you're using two arms to do it and your body, and the only thing that keeps my pistol from hitting the floor are my shoulder muscles, and don't talk about recoil when shooting an air rifle or a .22 LR 15 pound or heavier gun.

First off, the two arms and body idea is a nice one, but doesn't mesh well with reality - we're not talking about being in a good weightlifting stance when shooting, we're talking about an offset asymmetric load on the spine. In adults, that's a bad idea. In juniors, it's bordering on abuse.

And if you think recoil from a 17.6lb rifle in the standing position is nothing, you've not tried it. It's not that the force of the recoil is very high - it's the line that force takes and the way the body is aligned when it's applied. I mean, hit your knee with four pounds of force normally and it's just a little sore - hit it with that much force from the right angle when it's locked and you won't be walking straight for six months or more. How and where a force is applied to the human body counts for a lot.

OBVIOUSLY scores were lower, which gets me to my point: you don't have to break your spine but choose a less compromised body position, with correlating loss of points.

The thing is, that belief is at odds with pretty much all the research done into olympic sports and their athletes in the last few decades. The famous anecdote summarises it well - when asked if they would take a drug which would kill them in a few years, but which was undetectable and which might give them an increased chance of winning a medal, most olympic athletes said they'd take it regardless of the risk and low reward.

With mindsets like that, especially with the training methods in use in nations like China, do you really think we wouldn't see athletes sacrifice their health for a chance at a medal?

I mean, when I started in the sport, one of the more popular tales told on the range after the match was done was of the US women's shooting team, who used an extreme standing position which put a lot of stress on their spines and how that had caused them all long-term spinal damage. Whether or not the tale was true isn't relevant; the relevant point was that this was seen as a completely normal risk and outcome.

Until you change that mindset, changing the rules to allow equipment to damage shooters just isn't ethical.

[BenEnglishTX]

Why don't we go back to...no restriction at all...

I just want to see what sort of pistols people will design...

There are some newer pistol sports where this is directly addressed. The parts are available off the shelf (and the programming is simple enough that even a hack like me could do it) to build a pistol with a telescopic site feeding a digitizer that talks to a processor that locks out the trigger unless the pistol is pointed in exactly the right place. With a halfway steady hold, perfection could be achieved.

And that would be really boring. Thus, some sports specifically outlaw those technologies. For example, see the IMSSU rule prohibiting "programmed aiming devices" at GENERAL TECHNICAL RULES for all handguns categories, IV.B.g (page 23) at http://www.imssu.org/documents/Rules%20 ... 202013.pdf (caution: PDF file).

And, yes, I know you're joking but for a joke to be funny, it must contain a kernel of truth. It wasn't clear that you knew how close you came to reality.

[john bickar]

The famous anecdote summarises it well - when asked if they would take a drug which would kill them in a few years, but which was undetectable and which might give them an increased chance of winning a medal, most olympic athletes said they'd take it regardless of the risk and low reward.

This is exactly that, an anecdote, repeated often enough that many accept it as fact.

It has been disproven; no credible survey ever has been conducted that showed such results. (I don't have the source in front of me right now, but it stems from a bogus Sports Illustrated article in the 80s or some such.)

Don't hang your hat on this one.

[Sparks]

This is exactly that, an anecdote, repeated often enough that many accept it as fact.

The plural of anecdote not being data, I'm not saying that it's the sole proof of the point. I'm just saying that it's a well-known illustration of the issues involved. If you want the actual studies, there are entire journals with hundreds if not thousands of papers over the last few decades studying sports psychology and the link between motivation, risk perception, and general approach to injury avoidance. It (the field of study) basically says, in more specific language and with more supporting evidence, that when a medal's on the line, humans become very bad at rationally evaluating risk and doing cost/benefit analyses, which can lead to very poor decisions.

[brakarzac]

First off, the two arms and body idea is a nice one, but doesn't mesh well with reality - we're not talking about being in a good weightlifting stance when shooting, we're talking about an offset asymmetric load on the spine. In adults, that's a bad idea. In juniors, it's bordering on abuse.

You wont get much sympathy from pistol shooters, who shoot without the assistance of half a cow to help them stand up!

Basically, I would enjoy watching the rifle shooters and show them more respect when they ditch the leather jacket, the leather pants and wear normal clothes like pistol shooters do.

We manage to shoot 60 shot events, with recoil, with one hand quiet well. Rifle shooters have 2 hands to support and fire their rifle, while being so rigid in their shooting suits they can barely walk!

The true skill of marksmanship is displayed in pistol shooting, the rifle shooters arent true marksmen until they shoot without the leathers!!!

Cheers
Brad

[Sparks]

The true skill of marksmanship is displayed in pistol shooting, the rifle shooters arent true marksmen until they shoot without the leathers!

...and that's where the conversation went from being about target shooting to being about measuring genitalia...