stuckinthe60s
New member
at a public range?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Survey: Bullseye shooters only?
- Thread starter L. Boscoe
- Start date
I have been a Bullseye/Conventional/Precision pistol shooter since I first picked up a pistol (quite a while ago now). A bad spine nowadays has put a stop to 2700 matches but i still try my hand at gallery matches.
What I like about Bullseye is its unforgiving emphasis on precision and, thus, on fundamentals. Watching a master shooter on the 50 yard line at Camp Perry is a magical, and yet, humbling experience.
I am not a great shot, not at all, but I am better at any distance than anyone I have seen at the local range over the last few years. I go with one box of 50 rounds for the 1911 and another for the .22. I rarely shoot through both boxes. The other fellows are pumping out box after box of 9s. They are having fun which is part of why we are all there. It does seem to me, though, that they could be better shooters if they would just slow down a bit, move the targets a bit further away and pay a bit more attention to basics.
Perhaps I am too critical of how others do things that I enjoy. I wonder….
What I like about Bullseye is its unforgiving emphasis on precision and, thus, on fundamentals. Watching a master shooter on the 50 yard line at Camp Perry is a magical, and yet, humbling experience.
I am not a great shot, not at all, but I am better at any distance than anyone I have seen at the local range over the last few years. I go with one box of 50 rounds for the 1911 and another for the .22. I rarely shoot through both boxes. The other fellows are pumping out box after box of 9s. They are having fun which is part of why we are all there. It does seem to me, though, that they could be better shooters if they would just slow down a bit, move the targets a bit further away and pay a bit more attention to basics.
Perhaps I am too critical of how others do things that I enjoy. I wonder….
stuckinthe60s
New member
good post ,darkgael.
From what I've seen at the range, I've concluded that the vast majority of pistol shooters never beat the flinch and so they really have no chance at shooting decent groups.It does seem to me, though, that they could be better shooters if they would just slow down a bit, move the targets a bit further away and pay a bit more attention to basics.
If someone could wave a magic wand and instantly, globally eliminate the propensity to flinch when shooting a pistol, I think that maybe 80-90% of pistol shooters would be absolutely astounded at the improvement in their shooting the next time they went to the range.
stinkeypete
New member
Cowboy Action Shooting used to have some elements of distance shooting that required.. you know.. actually aiming. They took that out because people like blasting away as fast as they can. MEH. I have no interest in that sillyness. A cowboy should be able to shoot the gun out of Black Bart's hand at 50 feet.
One point missing from the discussion is that a lot of police and military training as well as police and military shooting competitions were bull's-eye shooting long ago. Interest in bull's-eye seems to have faded as public sector training began to abandon it.
I also think bull's-eye matches lost out to IPSC and the like for several other reasons. One is IPSC match prize money greatly outstrips prizes offered at bull's-eye matches. Another is IPSC began to show up on TV occasionally. At the same time, cowboys and other one-hand shooters were becoming less dominant in entertainment. Police procedurals became more prominent, and you saw police characters in movies and on TV change to two-handed handgun shooting.
I don't think it's news that the public copies what they see in entertainment media, even though a lot of it is only a director's or writer's idea of how trained public sector employees handle guns and is often unrealistic. It still appeals to people's fantasies. Anyway, I think the shift in popularity is about monkey-see-monkey-do more than anything else. As further evidence of that, there are still temporary upsurges in entry-level target and clay bird shooting when they are lucky enough to get a little bit of coverage during the Olympics.
I also think bull's-eye matches lost out to IPSC and the like for several other reasons. One is IPSC match prize money greatly outstrips prizes offered at bull's-eye matches. Another is IPSC began to show up on TV occasionally. At the same time, cowboys and other one-hand shooters were becoming less dominant in entertainment. Police procedurals became more prominent, and you saw police characters in movies and on TV change to two-handed handgun shooting.
I don't think it's news that the public copies what they see in entertainment media, even though a lot of it is only a director's or writer's idea of how trained public sector employees handle guns and is often unrealistic. It still appeals to people's fantasies. Anyway, I think the shift in popularity is about monkey-see-monkey-do more than anything else. As further evidence of that, there are still temporary upsurges in entry-level target and clay bird shooting when they are lucky enough to get a little bit of coverage during the Olympics.
stuckinthe60s
New member
bullseye was about being respected by peers.
anything else is about how much one can stuff in his pockets.
being respected and getting a pat on the back was all a bullseye shooter strove for.
all these 'games' played with guns is about crushing oppositon with high tech, top notch gizmo guns, designed to distance ones self from the less fortunate.
bullseye was about perfected talent over time. now its about who has the latest and best science and techno gizmo to make one achieve a goal in the least amount of time.
just my observations as an old guy whos been around the gun games a while.
anything else is about how much one can stuff in his pockets.
being respected and getting a pat on the back was all a bullseye shooter strove for.
all these 'games' played with guns is about crushing oppositon with high tech, top notch gizmo guns, designed to distance ones self from the less fortunate.
bullseye was about perfected talent over time. now its about who has the latest and best science and techno gizmo to make one achieve a goal in the least amount of time.
just my observations as an old guy whos been around the gun games a while.
stuckinthe60s said:all these 'games' played with guns is about crushing oppositon with high tech, top notch gizmo guns, designed to distance ones self from the less fortunate.
bullseye was about perfected talent over time. now its about who has the latest and best science and techno gizmo to make one achieve a goal in the least amount of time.
The divisions are separated by the equipment being used. You can still compete in iron sight only divisions. It isn't quite the poor versus the rich situation you're making it out to be. Hell, Nils Jonasson is winning championships shooting a Canik, which is nowhere near as expensive as some of the options out there. Meanwhile I have friends that spent more on individual iron sighted competition pistols than I have invested in pistol and optic combined.
On a lighter note, your name seems well chosen.