TargetTalk

While use of red dot sights may help keep the total number of shooters higher, I am not sure that it is all that relevant to ISSF shooting, which except for running target is all iron sight. Learning the use of red dot sights and open iron sights re pistol shooting are two different perceptual tasks. The visual patterns we teach our brains to recognize and respond to are quite different, and both are very specific. I have never seen any studies re possible transfer of training/perceptual spreading that applies here, but I suspect that there isn't much. Other aspects of shooting such as position and trigger control may be much the same, but not likely the sighting.We need to encourage shooters to shoot with iron sights for ISSF. At my ancient age, my eyes are miserable, and I shoot with the opposite eye. Many others do the same. What is needed is USAS to more actively encourage and support informal ISSF style shooting. And that means iron sights. If USAS had greater "presence" in clubs and local matches, iron sights might make a "comeback"
Richard Newman

Anonymous wrote:Optics going head to head with irons is the fast way to eliminate irons on the competitive level.

I suppose it depends on what you identify as 'the competitive level'. If local matches don't count, then perhaps yes, optics would push irons out of the the picture since I'm not sure what equipment the top ten shooters at Camp Perry used (does anyone know?). But if you want to include local matches as part of 'the competitive level', then NO, optics don't eliminate irons. Like I said before and as Mike confirmed, there ARE shooters using iron sights in bullseye.

While I'm no expert, I believe that in general increasing the choices available leads to increased participation. I don't know of any studies relating to shooting that address this, but here are a couple of papers on sports participation in general:

http://www.lin.ca/lin/resource/html/mm83.htm
http://www.cmyi.net.au/pdf_files/Sport_sustaining.pdf (specifically page 5)
http://www.sportengland.org/sustainabil ... inal-7.pdf (specifically pages 10 and 11)

Obviously, some of those are more applicable than others, but the point is that appealing to a broader selection of people to create interest in an activity will generally benefit the program. Yes, if optics were allowed in competitions as a separate category, you would probably see an initial surge of people moving from iron to optics BUT as long as iron sights are the only acceptable equipment in the top matches / only acceptable equipment for national records, you will have people switch from optics to iron sights. My wife and I both shoot iron sights at the local bullseye match because:

a) we're young and the eyes haven't become too bad yet, so iron sights aren't any extra work;
b) we get a certain amount of personal satisfaction shooting higher scores than many of the optics shooters;
c) it's what we started with in college and we're too stubborn to switch; and
d) like Mike, I'm working on my Distinguished badge as well and only want one sight picture for everything. There's also a desire to shoot int'l pistol at some point.

It's that last point that I think is most important to this discussion. I don't shoot int'l pistol now because there's no community where I am. Even as limited as Distinguished matches are, I can still find them within a one hour drive. Int'l matches are hundreds of miles away and only occur from time-to-time. If allowing optics would help create more opportunities to shoot int'l pistol locally, even if I'm the only one with iron sights, then I think it's a good idea and I'd show up at the matches. Would allowing optics necessarily spawn a bigger community? No, but the chances are better than continuing with the current programs/processes.

- Nick

Anonymous wrote:As you stated the majority use dots, and there is absolutely zero evidence that allowing optics will gain more participation. I wished it was true but it is not. Optics produces slightly higher scores and that is why people want them. Optics going head to head with irons is the fast way to eliminate irons on the competitive level.

We are in agreement that the records should be iron sights only. The dots came up from someone proposing to allow the dots to compete head to head at some arbitrary age. The imediate response was bad eyes can happen at any age (which is true) and so my conclusion is that if you let optics into the game then you will run the iron out. I like AP and the internation type events specifically because they are iron sight only.

In the end it comes down to winning and losing, and shooting should also have a "I do it cause it is fun" component. Gadgetry isn't going to save the shooting sports, fun is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Optics going head to head with irons is the fast way to eliminate irons on the competitive level.

I suppose it depends on what you identify as 'the competitive level'. If local matches don't count, then perhaps yes, optics would push irons out of the the picture since I'm not sure what equipment the top ten shooters at Camp Perry used (does anyone know?). But if you want to include local matches as part of 'the competitive level', then NO, optics don't eliminate irons. Like I said before and as Mike confirmed, there ARE shooters using iron sights in bullseye.

While I'm no expert, I believe that in general increasing the choices available leads to increased participation. I don't know of any studies relating to shooting that address this, but here are a couple of papers on sports participation in general:

http://www.lin.ca/lin/resource/html/mm83.htm
http://www.cmyi.net.au/pdf_files/Sport_sustaining.pdf (specifically page 5)
http://www.sportengland.org/sustainabil ... inal-7.pdf (specifically pages 10 and 11)

Obviously, some of those are more applicable than others, but the point is that appealing to a broader selection of people to create interest in an activity will generally benefit the program. Yes, if optics were allowed in competitions as a separate category, you would probably see an initial surge of people moving from iron to optics BUT as long as iron sights are the only acceptable equipment in the top matches / only acceptable equipment for national records, you will have people switch from optics to iron sights. My wife and I both shoot iron sights at the local bullseye match because:

a) we're young and the eyes haven't become too bad yet, so iron sights aren't any extra work;
b) we get a certain amount of personal satisfaction shooting higher scores than many of the optics shooters;
c) it's what we started with in college and we're too stubborn to switch; and
d) like Mike, I'm working on my Distinguished badge as well and only want one sight picture for everything. There's also a desire to shoot int'l pistol at some point.

It's that last point that I think is most important to this discussion. I don't shoot int'l pistol now because there's no community where I am. Even as limited as Distinguished matches are, I can still find them within a one hour drive. Int'l matches are hundreds of miles away and only occur from time-to-time. If allowing optics would help create more opportunities to shoot int'l pistol locally, even if I'm the only one with iron sights, then I think it's a good idea and I'd show up at the matches. Would allowing optics necessarily spawn a bigger community? No, but the chances are better than continuing with the current programs/processes.

- Nick

Anonymous wrote:As you stated the majority use dots, and there is absolutely zero evidence that allowing optics will gain more participation. I wished it was true but it is not. Optics produces slightly higher scores and that is why people want them. Optics going head to head with irons is the fast way to eliminate irons on the competitive level.

The subject of optics was originally brought up, by me, as a way to keep the older shooters (50+) involved and running matches. We have sponsored anysight NRA matches for years with juniors being required to use iron sights. No problems, and the seniors who continue to shoot run the matches and coach the juniors, and have no problem with not being eligible to set records. The seniors still HAVE FUN shooting with scoped rifles, but soon drop out when iron only is required (I'm the only one still shooting air becasue of this rule, and find it to be less and less FUN as my eysight worsens).

Point of this was a way to keep programs going by retaining the older shooter. When it is no longer fun the fishing rods and golf clubs come out, and the junior programs go by the wayside.

It sounds to me that, as long as records are open to iron sights only, no one really has a problem with letting people shoot the course with optics. It could possibly keep the experience on the range and helping up-and-comers with their shooting. That's a win-win, or at least a win-draw, in my estimation.

- Nick

On a different tangent, one thing that should be done to increase the size of the pool is to do better on packaging information on olympic development for new shooters.

Case in point, my wife. We both shot in college, went to nationals, had fun, graduated and went to work. Now that we're in the work groove, we're looking to take the next step or at least keep improving. Yesterday she was looking for more information on the USAS web site on how to proceed. She found nothing. Zero. The 'Do YOU have Olympic Aspirations' page is uninformative in general and geared toward Jr. Olympics shooters only. As working adults, this is not available to us.

Perhaps there's more information in this 'Olympic Team Selection Procedure' document...(http://www.usashooting.com/news/2003O_Team.doc) Or not. Some comments:
a) It's out of date and is specific to the 2004 Olympics.
b) Something general, and NOT written like a government directive (i.e. readable to normal people) would be good. A checklist would be even better. 'To make the Olympic team, you need to...'
c) I've read it 4 times now and am still not sure how it all works. Do I need to shoot a MQS at the Fall and/or Spring tryouts? Do I need to shoot a PTO or can I just show up to the tryouts? Does a MQS shot at a PTO count? And so on.
d) It's a Word document. That's good as a backup or as a printable version, but sucks if you're browsing a site for information.

This is, in my opinion, basic information that needs to be readily accessible to those who are looking. Sure, this message board can answer any questions, but that information belongs on the USAS web site - where my wife expected it to be. She's extremely frustrated right now. Compounding that is the fact that most Sport Pistol events are for the Jr. Olympics. The only 2 open matches with Sport Pistol on the USAS web site are in Utah and South Carolina. Is it any wonder that it's difficult to get people interested in international shooting when it's a major effort for most people to get to a match in comparison to how easy it is to get involved with NRA bulls-eye locally. It's not a hard call for most people to make.

I thought I'd share a anecdotal story about someone who's really interested, and has past experience, in shooting international pistol, but is very frustrated by the lack of information on how to do it.

- Nick[/list]

Might I suggest you phone up USA shooting directly ? Not only should they be able to tell you what you (she) need to do to achieve selection but also what relevant matches there are, when and where. At the same time you can let them know how difficult you found it to find any information.

HTH,

Rob.

nneely wrote: b) Something general, and NOT written like a government directive (i.e. readable to normal people) would be good. A checklist would be even better. 'To make the Olympic team, you need to...'
c) I've read it 4 times now and am still not sure how it all works. Do I need to shoot a MQS at the Fall and/or Spring tryouts? Do I need to shoot a PTO or can I just show up to the tryouts? Does a MQS shot at a PTO count? And so on.
- Nick[/list]

Hi Nick

As a rule, coaches are reluctant to set a checklist for making the team because then the power is in the checklist, not in themselves. I just made up our 4-H County Brochure for Shooting Sports and under advanced air rifle team, I put finish Basic Rifle and with the coach's permission. I would prefer to avoid problems instead of having to kick someone off the team later. This may not help you out and I do agree that the information on shooting qualifiers does need to be better presented.

Mike
Wichita KS

Rob - very true and will do.

Mark - I'm confused as to what you mean by '...coaches are reluctant to set a checklist for making the team because then the power is in the checklist, not in themselves.' Why should the coach have that power? Wouldn't it be better to have a standard that can be fairly applied to everyone? Having a coach make the go/no-go decision doesn't inspire much faith in the system. How can a shooter feel confident that politics/personality won't play a part in the coach's decision? Besides, since it seems that a lot of the people on the national team work full time and shoot at a local range, how does it matter if the national team gets a little bigger? If international pistol is seen as an elitist sport, i.e. only the coach favorites get the national team slots, then how can there possibly be any motivation for people to attempt to break into that clique? I know, lots of questions with no real good answers, but it baffles me that there's an aknowledged problem with growing shooting talent yet I can't find a clear path to get to the top.

- Nick

In reply to nneely,

The Black Mountain Shooting Club, in Southern California, has a USA Shooting Match/PTO practically evey month. Since we use a commercial range I have to reserve the 10m, 50m and 25 m ranges to hold my matches. After almost a year of not having anyone show-up for the 25m events, I was informed that I could no longer reserve the range if I did not use it.

I no longer include 25m in my sanctioned match schedule but if anyone wants to have a training match on the 25m range, contact me and I will arrrange it. I will get them sanctioned if people come to shoot, but if no one shows, there is no reason to include it in my match schedule.

Have your wife go to the Match Director of the matches that she would like to shoot and work with him to get them scheduled. I am sure that they would scheduled them if there shooters that would attend.

This is just my experience and the reason that perhaps 25m matches are not offered at other matches also.

Sandy

Sandy,

That makes sense and really isn't a surprise considering there's only 14 women shooting the 25m event (based on USAS rankings). It's a small population. The unfortunate thing is we're not close to any PTO matches (that I'm aware of) in VA.

- Nick

Mark - I'm confused as to what you mean by '...coaches are reluctant to set a checklist for making the team because then the power is in the checklist, not in themselves.' Why should the coach have that power? Wouldn't it be better to have a standard that can be fairly applied to everyone? Having a coach make the go/no-go decision doesn't inspire much faith in the system. How can a shooter feel confident that politics/personality won't play a part in the coach's decision?

Coaches need to be able to put togehter a TEAM of shooters who can work well toghether and support each other. If you set criteria that a certain shooter meets, but that shooter is a detriment to the TEAM due to personality of the shooter, the coach may want to choose a different member for the team slot. I don't know if you coach a team, but if you do, and have not had this situation you are lucky. Even coaching a junior level team we have run into problems with a good shooter not being a good team member, and I suspect this problem only gets worse as the level of ability (and the egos involved) rises.

Pat,

I don't have any coaching experience and while I've never shot at a World Cup event, I can't remember seeing any medals/trophies/awards given to a national team. All of the accolades go to individuals. Who cares about a team? It doesn't seem very reasonable to me to shut someone out of Olympic contention because they have a big ego. If they have the scores to back it up, then let them loose and ignore them if they annoy you. If that person chooses to work outside of the team framework - not helping others on the team, ignoring coaching tips, etc. - then they're missing out on potential resources for improving their own game. Let them shoot their game and focus coaching efforts on the others. What's the big deal? And what's more important, winning/gaining olympic slots/having a larger pool of top shooters or ensuring everyone gets along?

In the collegiate shooting I've done, our traveling team was chosen by the simple question, 'Who has the best scores?'. It seemed to be a good system and one that everyone could see was fair. Seniority had nothing to do with the selection - a newer shooter who was shooting well could easily displace a more experienced one who was in a slump. No hard feelings if it turned out that way because it's hard (in my opinion) to deny a performer in preference to a non-performer. We had some prima donnas, but with all due respect, their scores helped the team - and we did compete for team awards. Their ego was moderated by our coaches.

If this is the attitude of USAS (that the coach controls everything) then I can see why pistol has a small pool of shooters and is looking for ways to improve this. I don't trust a system where my standing rests with politics and subjective opinion. I'd always be concerned I'd be replaced with some Jr. Olympian who knows all the coaches and has been in the USAS system for a decade while I've only just made the team. In addition, if I shoot good scores but don't have a coach to champion me for the team, I would feel at a disadvantage to someone with a coach - even if their scores aren't better than mine on average.

I guess I'm just a sucker for performance-based management. :)

- Nick

Nick,

I guess you are looking at it from the athlete's viewpoint, and I understand what you are saying.

However, from the coaches standpoint there is more to worry about than the success of one individual. If I spent all my time with my top athlete I would soon have no others, and when the top athlete moved on the program would end.

At the levels below international there are awards given on a team basis (all the way up to, and including, collegiate).

I do not speak for USA Shooting, but I would not be suprised if team dynamics was an important part of team selection there as well as at the level I coach.

As to few pistol shooters, I think much of that comes from the lack of entry level programs (junior programs), a problem which is high (if not highest) on the list for USA Shooting.

Pat,

I'm not suggesting coaches should spend inordinate amounts of time with their top shooter. I would think that if you're spending all your time with one shooter because s/he has an ego problem, then ignore them. Let them shoot, let them compete, but don't waste your time on them. I agree that you should also be developing other shooters so you've a well-rounded program. Either your top shooter loses ground, performance-wise, to the coachable shooters or s/he remain the top dog, helps the team score, and you haven't used any time/energy/effort on them. If the ego shooter leaves because their ego isn't being stroked enough, then good riddance. Move on and build the team with the personable shooters you've been working with and who've presumably been improving.

As for USAS entry programs, why should I get involved with that if I don't know that my performance will be rewarded? What's the point in participating in a program with fuzzy guidelines on how to make it to the highest level? "Shoot in enough PTOs and if a coach wants to take you on, you're in" is a BS way to run a program. I seriously doubt that's how it works, but that's how Mike's comment and your defense sounds to me. I think it's wrong if a coach can prevent people from moving to the top level of competitions based solely on his/her opinion of attitude. If someone is good enough to shoot top scores without help from a coach or teammates, a coach would be silly not to allow them to shoot for his/her team, regardless of how big the shooters ego (perhaps justifyably so) is.

Shooting is NOT a team sport, in my opinion. My scores are a result of my actions. In order to shoot well, I have to block out any distraction - including interpersonal issues, catchy advertising tunes, heat, cold, noise, the cute girl two points down the line, doubts about my shooting ability, and a thousand other things. My score may help my team out, but the team effort is solely a product of individual efforts. There is no synergy, teamwork, or playbook to assist me when I'm on the line - unlike real team sports like soccer, baseball, football, etc. If I make a mistake, a teammate can't be there to mitigate its effects, they can't make my 7 a 9. It's one of the reasons I like shooting. That said, interpersonal conflict is just one possible distraction among many that can effect a shooters performance. Ego shooter or not, a team will face those distractions, so why be so concerned about that one person?

How can the shooting pool grow if potential members don't trust the selection process? I've read comments on TargetTalk that seem to indicate this was how it used to be and is possibly a contributing factor to why there's not a large pistol shooting pool now.

- Nick

Stan Pace wrote:
Nick,

A FP, Std, CF/Sport match was recently held near Richmond, VA. There should be more of these matches there next year.

Also, AP and FP matches are starting again near Yorktown, VA. There may be Std and Sport matches there at some point in the future.

Stan

Stan,

Thanks for the heads-up. Any chance you guys can get those listed on the USAS site? The only VA match there now is a Jr. Olympics air match.

- Nick

Nick,
This Air pistol match in Maryalnd is not far from Woodbridge, ~45-50min drive. http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?p=40254

Stan,
e-mail me info about the matches or post it here please.

Stan,

My email is tzalmon (at) yahoo (dot) com.

- Nick

Thanks. Much appreciated.

- Nick

I'd much rather see the shooting community recognize that there's more elegance and true sport in using iron sights than electronic doo-dad aiming aids.

Remember Al Czervik's electronic putter in "Caddyshack"? It was meant as joke, but red dot sights are this sport's equivalent of that joke.

I'd rather see the ISSF do the right thing and the shooting community come to appreciate what pure shooting is.

nneely wrote:I'll have to disagree with Guest on this point. While the majority of the bullseye shooters in the local league shoot with red-dots, there's certainly a percentage that don't use them. In a league I shot in previously, the vast majority used iron sights. It's not a given that allowing 'any sight' will eliminate iron sights completely, but if allowed, there will certainly be a large percentage using red-dots. If, in the end, it means more people are coming to int'l matches and generates interest in the sport, then I'd call it a worthwhile change.