let's be realistic...

P

peacemaker

Inactive
looked up fast draw on google today, and got kind of unsettled. i was just looking for tips on how to get a sixgun out of a holster fast, but found out that to be "competitive" you have to have a three screw old model blackhawk with a shaved down lightened frame, lightened action, titanium cylinder and barrel, etc. most of the guns can't even fire live rounds without blowing up.
That got me thinking about how unrealstic a lot of these shooting games are.
Take olympic shooting, for example. They've got these long barreled single shot .22s with skeletonized stocks and psychadelic colors and optics. The pistols look like they belong in a star wars movie, with the wacky sights and the 179 degree grip angle.
Don't get me wrong; i understand the guns are like that for a reason, and if that kind of sport suits you there's nothing wrong with that. But i wish they'd just give them a marlin .30-30 or something and see if they can hit with that.
anybody agree, disagree?
 
It seems to be that about anything they start shooting you name it starts out for the average shooter and the next thing you need a $2000 gun just to start. :barf:
 
gun games are fine, and do provide good training. Just don't think that the gamesters are wearing that quick draw rig for daily CCW.
All sports are expensive these days. Priced new golf clubs lately? A tennis racquet?
 
I'm glad the gamesmen are having a nice time. Don't care for it myself. When the guns at the metallic silhouette matches started looking like chair legs with ten power rifle scopes with the boys holding them about an inch in front of their eyeballs, I got disgusted and quit. When the gamesmen showed up at traditional blackpowder revolver matches with Ruger Armies, I quit that too. Probably my problem but it appears that after the equipment race progressed to a certain point, these matches pretty much went away.
 
you can still get a pair of running shoes cheaper than a gun.

my goal is to make enough money to buy a racetrack for competition "practical" drive'n'shoot. that way you need the $2000 1911 _and_ the $200000 aston to compete.
 
No matter what shooting sport, it seems the competetive jerks take over.

It's no longer about competing against yourself and improving your abilities, and having a great time with like-minded people. It's about doing anything to win. Win the equipment race and you can buy a championship.
They can have it.
 
Test technology or people?

I agree that at the amateur level of sports in particular, equipment budget should not be the deciding factor.

Even for pro or olympic sports, I would rather have a contest with identical equipment (if very high performance), so that we test just the people, not the technology.

I do think that you need high quality equipment at the highest levels of competition though, for example, if olympic shooters used bargain guns, there probably wouldn't be any difference between them, because the limiting factor would be the gun. Just need it all to be the same.
 
LOL I do agree to some of the observations. I started CAS shooting in the 70s. The SASS Single Action Shooting Society formed up and suddenly there were gamers everywhere. I have seen many good firearms brought out of the safe and some new firearms introduced that should have never seen the light of day. There are equipment races. I have seen it in every sport I have been involved with though. There are just some people who push the rulebook.
 
Heavily specialized guns are the natural result of any competition.

When the sport first starts up, people are using "regular joe" guns, simply becuase that is what people most have. As you shoot the sport, certain modifications will sooner or later, allow you to shoot, or compete, at a higher level. Initially, these modifications tend not to be really outrageous, (free floated ARs, mag wells on 1911s) but unless divisions exsist for "stock" pistols, people will tend to modifiy their guns to any extreme if it helps their shooting. I think that it is less an attempt to beat out the competition as it is an effort to make the match easier to shoot.

What makes this effect more pronouced is that most guns will work for general duty as is. But the less generalized the sport is, the more specialized a gun you get away with. Take silhouette shooting or Olympic bullseye. Slowfire offhand shooting will be easiest with a gun that won't work well for Bianchi cup. However, a USPSA Open gun ought to be competetive in several types of centerfire pistol matches.

I don't think this is a bad thing. Competetive shooting has brought many advances in gun design, reloading, and shooting techniques. As long as you've got stock classes to balance out the people who really want to get crazy (nothing wrong with that!) I see competitve shooting as a real advantage to realistic guns and shooting.
 
Most Olympic shooters can surprise you with a BB gun. When you see the groups and scores they produce with the specialized guns they use then you can appreciate what they are doing. Their technique is down to a science and that will carry over to any gun they use.
You really should try to understand the equipment and see what the shooters are doing with it.
 
Back when I shot with a local IPSC club in the 80's I quickly learned that the guys with the fancy guns, could swap guns with me, and take my stock out of the box gun and still shoot rings around me.
 
The topic of a truly practical shooting sport or event (notice I didnt say competition) came up a couple times on the leverguns forum awhile ago.

Some of the thoughts were having a time period shoot, guns had the be "as available" in say, 1920, or 1930 etc, so no race guns, and stages may be some running, a single shot or two at a couple of targets, and a couple more shots out to say 300 yards or whatever worked for the available range. We were thinking shots on deer targets and things like that, with maybe some "combat" stages, but realistic, and not a "hose'em down" event. Idealy, nobody could see the stage until after they had shot it, so they couldnt "dry practice" watching others go through it. We were mainly thinking rifles, but pistols could be used on similar courses of fire. Pistols can be shot out to a couple hundred yards. A well rounded shot can do it. Some discussion came up about not scoring against the other shooters as much as for the experience, and not having time as much of a factor. Hits, and few or no misses would count more than raw time.
 
win vs not-win

I do not need a $XXXX gun to be involved in my chosen pastime (USPSA -- A33102), but I may need the latest-n-greatest to be more competitive.

USPSA is currently set up to allow any basic 9mm-n-up gun compete in some 'class' (Division) where it can be competitive and perhaps win.

I could care. Yes, I want to crush all opposition on my way to becoming King of the entire universe, but until that occurs I'll be competing with Redhawks and Witnesses and, okay, maybe a couple fancy expensive 1911's (but with 8-rd mags). :D


Bottom line = you cannot spend enough to win, you must be able to use that $XXXX gun, ay?
 
This percieved equipment race and 'gamers' ruining the sport where you can't compete against yourself and have fun is BUNK!!! If you didn't want to win you would not care in the least what the other guy was using!!! Really, if you are competing against yourself what would it matter? If you really wanted to just test yourself, improve your skill and be able to monitor your improvement you would still be out there shooting using the equipment you want to use!!!

In the shooting competitions I have been to no one has been looked down on for not having the latest and greatest supergun. No one has been looked down on for not shooting the top score.

After being away from any sort of competitive shooting for years and years I recently, back in March, started USPSA competitions. I started with a leather thumb break concealment holster and a carry gun, all I got was encouragement. I picked up a faster holster for the princely sum of $12, and still use the same carry gun. My ability has improved dramatically, even have a couple stage wins and a second place in my division at the local club matches. Not bad for a guy that just started and starts every stage down almost 30% in capacity for my division without the bells and whistles of the most competitive gun. There are cases where a different gun would improve my scores, but until I can shoot to the limits of my current rig consistently there isn't much of a point in buying up. The top shooters are getting the top scores with SKILL, plain and simple, swap guns with them and you will see that they still beat the pants off of everyone else with your 'realistic' gun.

If you don't want to spend the money on a top competition there are divisions for basic production guns in every handgun discipline I have been around. A couple weeks ago at a club match I watched a guy with a box stock Glock 17, 3.5# connector and 10 round magazines take 3rd or 4th overall out of 45 competitors with 7 of those competitors having $2500++ open guns and at least 5 more with $2000+ limited guns. That guy can SHOOT!!!! His total investment in the gun, holster, mags and so on is less than $700 paying full MSRP for everything.

The equipment race isn't spoiling anything for anyone, the opportunity you have to test yourself and improve your own skill hasn't changed one bit.
 
The theory that you need an expensive gun to shoot has always pissed me off. I shot a match with someoen who thought this and was really vocal about it. I got him to agree to switch guns and still whooped his ass just as badly as I was doing with my competition gun. It is 99.9999999999999% the shooter and the rest is the equipment. Take Dave Sevigny in USPSA. He shoots a COMPLETELY(except for sights) stock glock and still easily whoops people with $3000 limited guns. It is the shooter. I usually find the the people that bitch about it being equipment never practice. Then they have something to blame it on since they cant accept that they are less skilled.

As a funny side note about this:

I shot a steel match last night with my $3k limited gun(20 round capacity). I then shot the match again with my Fiance's rig which is a Basically stock Glock 17. I shot it in Limited 10 with a 10 round limit. There were 2 stages where I had to reload twice with the glock and not at all with the STI. I shot faster with the glock and the reloads. It isnt the gun!
 
gotta go with the mad skillz of the person behind the gun......

I have seen crappy shooters spend mad money on pistols...several thousand and they still shot crappy.

I have seen good shooters pick up a stock shooter and still put em in the circle.......


I myself am decent....still have a ways to master the basic skills even though I scored 250 outa 250 on my CCW qualification they were all in a dinner plate size but I know I can do better. I could buy a Mark 23 for $2000.00 but I wouldnt see any major improvement over what I do now.

so I am practicing more....not spending more.
 
I shoot rifle competitons, not pistols, but have shot pistol comp in BP matches.

As long as my rifles and loads are tuned and accurate, I have never been swayed by the high dollar stuff.

I have had conversations with guys who recommended high dollar equipment
"because it is needed to win", but my own riggin' seems to be doing all right , right down to my Japanese 1885's so I am not about to plunk down a zillion dollars on an American made rifle!
"Practice and learn with what you have, and make sure it works", is what I go by
David
 
You mentioned fast draw and gamers.
Many of those people are shooting SAA Colts or .357 Vaquero's loaded with baby squib .38 loads. When I started, I was told my several members that my Bisley Vaquero's in .45Colt were unsutable for CAS shooting. WTH? The .45Colt is about as old west as your going to get.
Use and shoot what you like, and ignore the others. Above all. have fun. For me and CAS its .45Colt revolvers and rifle.
Heck I even manage to win from time to time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top