The Goal

The Goal

Saturday, 25 April 2015

Has TR become an equipment game?

A comment on the Facebook UK Fullbore forum a while back interested me. A member of the forum commented that he couldn't stay competitive in fullbore because of cost, and he would be happy to see fully-adjustable stocks, right sights etc... banned from the sport. After some sober reflection, I disagree with his choice of examples, if not some of the sentiments expressed in his post. I do not believe that many of the flash new gadgets that are around have really increased accuracy and frozen out those who cannot afford them.

There is no doubt that costs are rising and it is putting people off the sport; however I don't think the problem is the equipment of shooting, rather I believe it to be the variable costs. Had he singled out increases in the cost of ammunition or targetry as having priced him out of the sport, then I would have agreed wholeheartedly. I don't believe that the equipment necessary to compete has fundamentally changed in at least a decade and you can still be competitive with largely second-hand kit.

I have seen little evidence that the use of an eagle eye leads to any reduction in group sizes for people of moderate or good eyesight (but if you've got some then I'd be very pleased to see it and will publicly revise my opinion on this blog.Either that or mercilessly demolish the analysis. One of the two.)  I could be persuaded that they assist the seriously visually challenged. When I made comparisons about a decade ago, I found that my group size was unchanged when swapping between the two. I freely admit that these were not statistically significant as I didn't fire enough shots or perform any kind of detailed numerical analysis. I swapped to a 30mm foresight with a 0.5 Eagle Eye in 2010 because it enables me to have the target and a readable target number in the sight picture at the same time at long range. That said, perhaps I have just exchanged the occasional crossfire at long range for the occasional crossfire at the shorts as I did in the NZ Championships at Trentham in January because I now can't read the target numbers at this distance! A certain former World Long Range Champion and Commonwealth Games gold medallist is known for not using an eagle eye, as are a number of the other very top shots.

Similarly, I have serious doubts as to the advantages of having a fully-adjustable stock. They have been on the market since the late nineties (if not earlier) and yet I can't remember a single member of the World Championship-winning 2007 and 2011 Great Britain Palma Rifle Teams having used one and there are only one or two shooters on the 2015 Palma Team who use one. Similarly, only one of the people in the mix during Glasgow 2014 was using one. If there is some inherent advantage in having one of these, then it certainly isn't showing up at the top of the sport. I use a UK-made clone of a Mastin stock, not particularly cheap but less than half the price of a Gemini.

It is certainly true that without the right kit, you're not going to be competitive; however the kit required hasn't really changed significantly in a long time. I qualified for and shot in the 2006 and 2010 Commonwealth Games, as well as on the 2006, 2007 and 2011 Great Britain Rifle Teams using a second-hand Swing Mk. III in an original "paddle" stock. I do admit to having put a new set of RPA Trakker sights on the rifle when the time between backlash fixes became intolerably short, and my shift to a Barnard in 2012 came about because of worries about malfunctions and a lack of spare parts, rather than a lack of faith in the accuracy of my two Swing rifles.

Better optics? Not convinced here either. While I know of a lot of shooters who have spent a fortune on Leica scopes and fancy scope stands, there are still a decent number of people who operate very effectively with much cheaper options. Having said this, I do admit to having splashed the cash on a Kowa TSN821-M and Ewing prone rifle scope stand back in 2005, but I was living in Atlanta at the time and it cost me approximately half the price it would have in the UK (850 bucks vs. 850 quid when the dollar was 2:1 against the pound.) Up until then I used my father's 60mm scope and the folding stand he had an Bristol University smallbore club back in the sixties.

The one area where I have spent a lot of cash over the years and felt that is has made a difference is on shooting jackets. They are remarkably expensive and can have a quite an astounding effect on the accuracy of one's shooting. Again, though, it is not necessarily the case that a vast amount of money need be spent.  Fit seems more important than the precise material, given the number of people who shoot year-in, year-out with delightfully antiquated canvas. An increasing number of people are having their existing jackets retailored by leather shops, tailors and shooting jacket specialists rather than buy new ones. Also jackets made of canvas and cordura are probably as good as those made of leather provided that they are correctly fitted. Even if you do choose to spend 400 odd quid on a custom-made leather jacket, provided that you don't put on or lose too much weight, there's a good chance that it will last you 5 years or more.

I don't think that it's possible to buy yourself medals in TR (yet) simply because the amount you need to spend to get the right kit is not that high and the odds are still immensely stacked in the favour of those with the skills. You still need to point it in the middle, hold it still and squeeze the trigger gently. Long may it continue.

Answers on a postcard please.

8 comments:

  1. Do you have a view as to why metal mickies are out of favour with the top shooters ?
    Is it just fashion, or something fundamental ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi BisleyTim,

      The Gemini and other metal stocks have been around since the late 90's if I remember correctly; however they don't really seem to have taken off in a big way at the top end of the sport. I think that fashion probably plays a part; however I think that the main causes are the durability of rifles, relatively low numbers of people taking up TR and the costs of the metal stocks.

      Your average fullbore target rifle lasts a very long time. My old Swing Mk. III rifles were made in the mid- to late-seventies and although they had had various parts replaced over the time, the actions and stocks were still going strong. Because the stocks don't really wear out in the same way that a barrel does, there's no pressing urge to replace them if they work for you. Add to this the relatively low numbers of people taking up TR at the moment, and you end up with a situation where it takes a very long time to replace the existing stock (excuse the bad pun) of competitive target rifles.

      The other issue is cost. A new rifle with a metal stock costs about GBP1000 more than a rifle with a conventional wooden stock and probably 500GBP more than a good quality laminate stock with an adjustable cheekpiece (such as the TVA stock that I use.) That's a lot of money, and my guess is that most people doing the buying don't believe that the additional expenditure is worth it.

      On a personal note, I bought a Barnard rifle in a Keppeler 300M stock back in 2005 but didn't use it much until the 2008 season, when I gave it a serious go; however I found it very unforgiving of the variability of positions I had to shoot in because of the firing points at Bisley. If the position was good, it was stunningly accurate to shoot; however if the position was bad, then my groups were atrocious.

      Cheers,

      Gaz

      Delete
  2. James Corbett (Australia) is one of the world's best and he uses a metal stock of his own design. Vblock machined into it depending on action. There are a lot of Australian shooters using them (perhaps durability in their climate?). I bought one of them but am yet to try it out-I will experiment on SCATT first.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What is so good about this blog is its uniqueness.
    gun safes and cabinets

    ReplyDelete
  5. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Government is good at making us believe that being safer (their definition) is well worth giving up a few rights.hunting

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. Big thanks for the useful info. thesurvivallife.com/

    ReplyDelete
  7. I’m going to read this. I’ll be sure to come back. thanks for sharing. and also This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. this is very nice one and gives indepth information. thanks for this nice article... https://refityourhome.com/skateboard-swing/

    ReplyDelete