As the weather warms more of us will be able to shoot outside. Some of us will shoot rested airguns at given distances to determine our rifles' and our shooting abilities.
The majority here will be using dedicated hunting air rifles. Some will be tuned or rebuilt and some will be bone stock. Doesn't matter, the point is to get out there and shoot and have fun.
Some here will look for more ways to increase their accuracy with the combos they have. Rested airgun shooting is a lot of fun. They'll attain a certain level of accuracy then work for monger distances, trying to maintain that same accuracy further out.
But what if you've got a combo that absolutely nails it? What if you want to try your hand at competing against other rested shooters? You could, you know. You could set that air rifle up and see how it shoots amongst a group of friends. You could even try your hand against the scores of a new game. Benchrest airgun shooting is a revived sport and it gives great detail not only how to play the game but how to get better at shooting rested airguns.
Even if you don't play the game, look at the things these guys are discussing regarding how they're getting tighter and tighter groups. Just the reading ought to get some of us to consider how we can use that knowlege to shoot better ourselves.
Reminds me of the kid who asked the old racer how much it cost to get into racing. The expeienced hand asked, "How fast do you want to go"?
So far that seems to be the case with benchrest airguns. It's not too expensive to get accurate. It's the last few hundredths of an inch of 'group tightener' that costs you the farm.
No reason to think it would be any different with airguns. Ultimate accuracy has always been expensive. Tom
I see your point. At that level they're race guns more or less. But I don't think they need to be. The quality of shooters who come to those matches would most likely do well with almost anything accurate. And sometimes I think we sell ourselves short. We take a stab at some similar game and when we don't do as well as we'd like to believe we should we abandon the game and the potential fun it could offer us in the future.
I've seen guys take less than stellar arms and use them like nobody's business. Man with One Gun type of guys. They obliterated younger shooters' scores. The rifle or handgun they used became an extension of the shooter. I grant that most importantly they shot inside the mind. That by the time they'd come to play the game they'd prepared the most important technical device in their control; themselves.
As much as I know there is a point where the tool does make the difference, getting to that point proves the shooter is up for the task. When one can outshoot the gun, so to speak.
Its one thing to aim for the unattainable. Most of us just don't have the time to dedicate to some sort of dream. But much as there were shooting clubs in taverns in Europe back in the day, some shooters truly excelled and advanced. Maybe they taught their kids what they learned and those kids became... better among their own peers?
Benchrest with those targets they offer on the site... man, that could be an airgun party theme right there.
<I see your point. At that level they're race guns more or less. But I don't think they need to be. The quality of shooters who come to those matches would most likely do well with almost anything accurate.>
Entirely true as far as it goes. But it fails to consider the fiercely competitive nature of man and the simple fact that some have more disposable income to 'buy' wins whether their passion is motorracing or accuracy.
Case in point: Roger Penske in American motorracing: His teams have won more Indy 500s than anyone else. Guess who just won the opening race of the 2008 NAPCAR season?
<I've seen guys take less than stellar arms and use them like nobody's business. Man with One Gun type of guys. They obliterated younger shooters' scores. The rifle or handgun they used became an extension of the shooter.>
Also true and something I can admire. But equally true is that the 'One gun man' isn't often the guy with the big bucks. It has been observed that in the case of motorracing that "There ain't no substitute for cubic inches-----------except for cubic dollars". The truism is no less applicable to accuracy or any other competitive endeavor that uses tools other than the human body alone.
<As much as I know there is a point where the tool does make the difference, getting to that point proves the shooter is up for the task. When one can outshoot the gun, so to speak.>
Within the past month I saw a post on another forum that told me exactly which way the new discipline was headed. The poster posed the question: (paraphrased) "If you had only $1200 to buy a scope for benchrest what would you choose"? There are so many implications embodied in that question concerning who will participate, how much they are willing to dedicate to it, how exclusive it must become and even what the eventual fate of the sport will be to even begin to point out specifics.
<Its one thing to aim for the unattainable. Most of us just don't have the time to dedicate to some sort of dream.>
I think the case above points out that the vast majority don't have the easily disposable income to be competitive----time or not. Further to the point---of those who DO have income levels that WILL support such an endeavor how many of them will have the time left over to devote to becoming competitive? Such spending levels indicated by the question above automatically eliminate the young married wage-earner, unless he has a speech impediment caused by a silver spoon in his mouth, and the retirees such as myself on fixed incomes. So looked at dispassionately who do you have left who can afford to be competitive? When answering that question bear in mind that those who aren't competitive, and come to realize that they never will be in their chosen sport, soon become discouraged and move on to other areas of interest.
As always with any sport that has no controls to limit spending the sport will devolve to a very narrow niche supported by a few individuals with the wealth and time to devote to it. The very nature of man dictates this will prove to be the case.
A very cynical-----Tom @ Buzzard Bluff
I agree with everything you wrote, Tom. Every word of it.
The only solution, and I know I'm merely writing what it appears you're implying here is that there be classes for amount spent on the rig/scope. If they want people to get involved they need to divide the classes by money spent on rig/glass and create a couple more classes. And it wouldn't affect the race gun classes in the least so I think it should be doable.
I hate the idea that classifications need to be set so that the majority don't feel left out but there needs to be a division so that people can enjoy themselves on an even platform against other competitors whose rigs are more evenly matched.
Fixed income and with kids still in school (not college). I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth, as the Who once sang.
Look at a lot of the shooting sports. Silhouetta (sp?) - Started out with Pancho Villa's men liberating chickens and livestock from villages, then staking them off in the distance to see who could kill them with handguns. Moved up north. Wasn't long before you've got silhouette guns @ $$$$$$.
Bowling pin shoots - Couple of guys (Jeff Cooper?) farting around with .45's and some old bowling pins. Within a short time there's Bowling Pin guns shooting toothy bowling pin bullets. $$$$$$
Benchrest rimfire - On a rimfire forum I belong to there's a section for a cerain high priced target rifle. I recently posted what I took to be a very good deal on one. (A couple hundred below the going rate but still fairly expensive, although nowhere near $1000.) Considered a "poor man's starter", as these guys would buy that gun, cannibilize the action, restock and rebarrel, ending up spending about $2000, not including scope. Ka-ching! $$$$
Sporting clays? Here's a shotgun game that seemed designed for Everyman Hunter. But wait, you aren't using one of those special stocked and ported over/unders? Tsk, tsk. Please leave by the servant's entrance. $$$$$$$
Hunter class rimfire competitions - Let Joe Blow compete with his everyday hunting, field type gun. Then let's get a lot of manufacturers to design specialty guns that narrowly meet the hunter class specifications, and put him shoulder to shoulder with them.
That's one reason I kind of like black powder. Not so much you can do aside from buying a custom made muzzle loader, and that choice is usually not accuracy-driven but wanting a more historically accurate old time firearm. Plus, at almost any BP shoot, just about anybody's welcome.
Harve wrote:
< The only solution, and I know I'm merely writing what it appears you're implying here is that there be classes for amount spent on the rig/scope. If they want people to get involved they need to divide the classes by money spent on rig/glass and create a couple more classes. And it wouldn't affect the race gun classes in the least so I think it should be doable.>
What you verge on suggesting and a concept that I withheld for a later time in my last post are 'claiming races' which has long been done in horse racing and adapted to some forms of motorsport. In horse racing it has long been accepted that it is simpy impossible to limit spending since reporting can be fudged in so many ways that it is impossible to control in any fashion whatsoever. The horse racing bodies attacked the problem from the opposite side of the coin. Now you are free to spend as much as your wallet and concience can tolerate, but you have no recourse if a competitor claims your horse at whatever $ amount has been established for the category. The concept is beautiful in its' simplicity and obvious advantages. But it can and DOES generate acrimony stemming from oft valid charges of cherry-picking. The practice is equally effective at self-policing and even the cherry pickers serves a valid purpose in that respect. The deep pockets soon learn that it can quickly get more expensive than both their pockets and limits of tolerance can handle and become conservative or go on to other areas where unlimited funds CAN buy success. However----should the practice be seriously suggested the screams of anguish from the deep pockets would be deafening. Music to the ears of some of us.
RedFeather wrote:
< I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth,>
I *&^%$#@ loved that line RF!
As you so efficiently pointed out in the balance of your post almost nothing can long withstand the corroding effects of money on a sport. Which is why I see 'claiming races' as the ONLY effective method of policing the sport. While I am not familiar enough with the sport to suggest actual practical claiming amounts I suspect something on the order of $750 for sporting gun/optics combos and $1500-$2000 for unlimited would go a long way toward keeping the sport competitive for far more would-be participants. As it currently exists I can't see much future for a sport that is functionally exclusive of participation by the average airgunner. As such, like many similar concepts in various sports over the years, it will soon weed out all but a few diehards with the depth of pocket to participate at a competitive level and will die from lack of participation.
Basically I look at any human endeavor in the light of how it will work under the influence of Mans' basic nature. One won't often err very wide of the mark under those parameters. Tom @ Buzzard Bluff
I think that in our case, it would be much simpler to come up with the proper solution. This is as close as my mind can get at the moment:
Competitor X uses Y rifle and Z scope.
Average out the cost of X rifle bought through internet airgun dealers A, B and C.You get a baseline.
(Since tunes can be done either under the shade tree or by people charging greenbacks-let them not be reflected in the amount spent)
Average out the cost of scopes bought through internet airgun scope dealers A, B and C. You get the other baseline.
To be matched competetively add those amounts for the total cost of the rig and let shooters be relegated to divisions where the chances of winning become higher for each competitor.
Basically...
Make divisions based on cost to buy similar items not on sale.
Great posts guys! I am addicted to my rest! I use it alot for testing of various springers. Just came in from a session setting up my friends new $%^& *& in 177 cal.. No you dont have to spend a fortune,, my Diana 54 shot from my $50 rest will constantly form one raged hole groups out to 25 yrds. Friendly comp. among friends is great fun! How about a postal match among us friends here? March 8 is the deadline for entrys. Remember guys keep it honest, its just for fun!! Some are already posting scores! Oh yeah,almost forgot, To enter this fun/friendly comp. you will have to visit me at my "second home", kliff53.proboards101.com I would LOVE the friendly comp. from my friends here!! 5,10,20,&30 yrds. Any gun, any shooting position,pretty much anything go,s!! (We will refine it soon) This was a great idea from my fellow moderator Phill. Check it out guys,I think its going to be great fun!!Tim.
If you are going to shoot from the bench, or prone, then money can buy a win. If you are going to stand up and shot a pistol (NRA bullseye) with one hand, then money doesn't. That takes skill and the right mental attitude to do.
Now don't get me wrong, a BE capable 1911 will set you back quite a bit by the time your gunsmith gets done with it But really, by the time you get near the $2,000 range there is nothing left to waste money on to "buy a win". Plenty of matches are won with Ruger’s and Buckmark’s for the rimfire part.
Times have changed and it is no wonder we can’t shoot. When our Dad’s were kids, a poor shot was the difference between eating meat or boiled potatoes again. When they went off to war with their 1903 Springfield or Garand, they knew they could hit and kill at distances the enemy couldn’t return fire at. We had rifle teams in our public schools. We felt safe and secure in the knowledge that our neighbors were armed and capable because there were “lions and tigers and bears” in the woods. A gun was a tool and if someone was stupid enough to injury themselves (with any tool) then it was best they were removed from the gene pool sooner than later.
So yes, times have changed and we can’t hit the broadside of a barn. Personally I am a little upset. I mean jeez guys, I asked about bedding the other day. Here you guys are bragging about having Heidi and Helga in the closet and not a one of you has been man enough to bed them yet. Disgusting I say. I remember when men were men and sheep lived in fear!
Whoa guys, hang on a second here. I don't give a rat's you know what about how other people do it or whether or not they have high zoot shoots. All I care about is the personal competition. Can I shoot better this time than I did the last time? I posted what I did because Tom had a good point. What the next guy brought honestly doesn't matter to me either way. My response to Tom has more to do with the overall interest generated by, and inclusiveness of the rules as they stand.
I don't shoot to beat the guy in the next lane. I shoot to beat the guy I was the last time I shot this rifle.
Hey Russ, Lest we forget, alot of guys here cant afford high end guns. Im shure we get alot of visiters here that wont post cause all they can afford to own are what we refer to as "China Clunkers" I say they are potential Diana owners,& we should keep an open mind. Lets just remember why most of us are here,,,Airguns are dam FUN!! Lets keep it that way! Tim.
Tim, you have nothing to apologize for. While I appreciate your sentiment, you and everyone on this thread stands on solid ground with me regarding the opinions shared on this thread.
