David Valdina
Member
Shooting matches in general and the relationship to rifle ownership.
I have owned firearms for over fifty years but only recently been taking part in shooting matches. Looking at all of the differing rules governing equipment and reading the opinions of others on the subject caused me to think about the underlying philosophy in these two related pursuits. It seems to me that some own rifles to compete in matches and others compete in matches so as to use their rifles. Much like owning firearms and hunting. It’s where the primary focus is placed. Understanding this won’t resolve disputes, but may make understanding the disputes easier.
To those whose focus is primarily the match, the rules come first and all else must fall in line with the rules. Those of us who shot IPSEC and IDPA saw the rules bring about equipment races that had pistols, holsters and ammunition little resembling anything actually carried in real life. In Rimfire rifle matches you must first decide which governing body’s matches you intend to shoot in, then choose your rifle in accordance with those rules. How much can the rifle weigh, what power scope is allowed, what trigger weight is required etc.
To those whose focus is on owning a firearm, the enjoyment is enhanced by using it, whether to plink, attend matches or hunt. And for the majority of folks, there are limits to how many firearms we own. Yes, I know, that is very sad.
Nobody has yet to develop a handicap system to this conflict. But, it could be done. It is done in other pursuits. Sailboat races allow all boats to compete but rate each boat based on factors affecting performance such as waterline length etc. One way to develop a rating for differing rifles would be to take a group of very good shooters on a range with each using a different rifle. Different in the shapes and forms that commonly exist. Varieties would be differing weights, scope powers, trigger weights etc. Shoot a few targets, mix up the shooters and rifles and do it again and repeat until each shooter had a turn with each differing rifle under the same conditions for as many targets and over as many days as is deemed sufficient to draw up the rating system. My guess is you could probably do this with existing data looking at IR 50/50 scores contrasting differing classes and with a sufficiently large number to work with, have pretty good results. Expand this by experience and allow ongoing modifications to the handicap rating as required. This would allow the person with a primary interest in owning a rifle to enjoy using it in more matches while still allowing those with a primary interest in the matches to have their competition.
Will this happen ? I doubt it. All organizations tend to focus on themselves to the exclusion of competing organizations. They tend to want to continue, even if their underlying reason for existing has vanished. The Mafia is one example that comes to mind as a strong and secret organization whose purpose was to protect the local population from what ever overbearing, exploitive and abusive power ruled the land. Once the threats were removed, the organization remained, but on it’s own, found a new reason to continue. Individually, we enjoy power and status from our positions within an organization and it’s against human nature to yield. So I am not optimistic about change. But as I had these thoughts, wanted to share them.
Respectfully submitted, David Lee Valdina
I have owned firearms for over fifty years but only recently been taking part in shooting matches. Looking at all of the differing rules governing equipment and reading the opinions of others on the subject caused me to think about the underlying philosophy in these two related pursuits. It seems to me that some own rifles to compete in matches and others compete in matches so as to use their rifles. Much like owning firearms and hunting. It’s where the primary focus is placed. Understanding this won’t resolve disputes, but may make understanding the disputes easier.
To those whose focus is primarily the match, the rules come first and all else must fall in line with the rules. Those of us who shot IPSEC and IDPA saw the rules bring about equipment races that had pistols, holsters and ammunition little resembling anything actually carried in real life. In Rimfire rifle matches you must first decide which governing body’s matches you intend to shoot in, then choose your rifle in accordance with those rules. How much can the rifle weigh, what power scope is allowed, what trigger weight is required etc.
To those whose focus is on owning a firearm, the enjoyment is enhanced by using it, whether to plink, attend matches or hunt. And for the majority of folks, there are limits to how many firearms we own. Yes, I know, that is very sad.
Nobody has yet to develop a handicap system to this conflict. But, it could be done. It is done in other pursuits. Sailboat races allow all boats to compete but rate each boat based on factors affecting performance such as waterline length etc. One way to develop a rating for differing rifles would be to take a group of very good shooters on a range with each using a different rifle. Different in the shapes and forms that commonly exist. Varieties would be differing weights, scope powers, trigger weights etc. Shoot a few targets, mix up the shooters and rifles and do it again and repeat until each shooter had a turn with each differing rifle under the same conditions for as many targets and over as many days as is deemed sufficient to draw up the rating system. My guess is you could probably do this with existing data looking at IR 50/50 scores contrasting differing classes and with a sufficiently large number to work with, have pretty good results. Expand this by experience and allow ongoing modifications to the handicap rating as required. This would allow the person with a primary interest in owning a rifle to enjoy using it in more matches while still allowing those with a primary interest in the matches to have their competition.
Will this happen ? I doubt it. All organizations tend to focus on themselves to the exclusion of competing organizations. They tend to want to continue, even if their underlying reason for existing has vanished. The Mafia is one example that comes to mind as a strong and secret organization whose purpose was to protect the local population from what ever overbearing, exploitive and abusive power ruled the land. Once the threats were removed, the organization remained, but on it’s own, found a new reason to continue. Individually, we enjoy power and status from our positions within an organization and it’s against human nature to yield. So I am not optimistic about change. But as I had these thoughts, wanted to share them.
Respectfully submitted, David Lee Valdina
