Mike Marcelli

jackie schmidt

jackie schmidt

New member
You made a comment in a previous thread about how aggs would keep comming down because dedicated shooters would continue to strive for The untimate in Rifle Accuracy.
One of the complaints I hear from shooters is, "you all shoot the same thing". This ignorance is permiated by those who do not really understand how much difference there is within the "basic concept".
The big things are obvious. You can not help but notice a tuner on a barrel, or a scope that is sans knobs, sitting in external adjustable mounts.
But what you can't see is the matching of powder, bullet design, free bore length, sizing techniques, and other small things that many of us are constantly messing around with in order to optimize the components that we have to work with. Most of the times, the gains are in increments that most do not even understand. Many times, it takes putting a concept to the test in The Competitive Arena several times to even seeif there is any worth to a new idea.
From reading the previous post on the subject, I still get the feeling that many shooters think that a tuner is some sort of magic pill that will allow you to just sit down and shoot at a competitive level with no thought of ever having to change anything.
I have made it plain in all of my post that in my opinion, a tuner is simply another weapon in the tuning arsenal. I continue to use my tuner affectivly in matches, I beleive it has a distinct advantage over other methods for the simple reason you can change things where it counts most, at the line.
Most of the mis-information that is floated around on this, and other forums, comes from the basic ignorance of those who really do not "get" 100-200 yard Benchrest. I get tickled at some of the comments, especially from those who have it all figured out without ever firng a shot at a target.
Benchrest will continue to get more difficult. The "anti" seems to be upped every year. You start to notice more and more shooters approaching the magic "sub .200" agging capability, and the frequent occurance of Two Gun Championships won with sub .250 aggs.
I think these are exciting times in shooting. There are a lot of people working on some ideas that, if come to fruit, will make the game even more difficut to win at.
I like it that way.........jackie
 
Jackie:
I counted you in as one of those competitors that will continue to use a tuner in the future. Not because you believe it has "magical" properties, but because it works for you. Moly still works for some -- but its not the magic powder it was once touted to be. It has its quirks and if you deal with them, it will produce good results -- but perhaps not BETTER results than you'd get with uncoated bullets -- hence my analogy to tuners.

Lou is on a rage this year. But if people knew how many barrels, bullets, lots of powder, yada, yada he's experimented with in and out of his tunnel to get to the combos that work they'd be shocked.

I've not been as dedicated as I once was to chasing the accuracy bug. I lost some drive when we lost our range. But, one of these days I'm going to set out to see if I can answer those three questions in my post. I just need to get the time to pursue it.

Take care and look forward to shooting with you at the Nats.
 
The "anti" seems to be upped each year

Jackie: You are right with that statement.
I'm using a tuner this year and have done a lot of testing. I think my program has improved.........alas, so has everyone else's. That will probably end up with me shooting better than ever before, yet placing about the same come the end of the match.:(
Bryan
 
Dedicated

Mike, I believe you are very dedicated to the sport. With what we have discussed about bullet design, improved jacket specs (ie. squarehead technology), and tuning as a key accuracy ingredient, your dedication is not in question. It's a pleasure to know you. ...Dave
 
I'm glad there are so many choices of components now days. I'm also glad people are experimenting more these days. it can only improve the game. the only change I've always wanted to see is a change in the sporter rules. if it wasn't for the current rules the 6PPC may not have ever been developed as fast. now it's time to use that class again for anything but a 6mm and maybe not even a .22. then we'll see some more developments.
 
Mike,

In the time I've known you, my aggs got smaller, & my knowledge of benchrest, increased threefold, or more, because of you.....

I value our discussions & your friendship greatly. I'm glad your interest in prospecting has risen, as I look forward to increasing your knowledge base in that field & we'll get some gold.....
 
Lynn

I was getting ready to head up to Tomball to shoot, and I checked the Forum.
I would rather not comment on your last post.........jackie
 
Just an observation from a non shooter--

Lynn's intelligence increase as it gets LATER in the night or EARLY in the morning.
 
Easy guys

It really ain't that big of a deal either way. Everything we think we know today... we'll be sure is wrong tomorrow. Some know today that others will conclude differently tomorrow while being wrong about a lotta stuff at the same time.
 
Key word

I believe what most of us are either missing or ignoring, is the "IN MY OPINION" sited more than once by Jackie Schmidt.

We are certainly entitled to "our own opinion", each and everyone of us.
The sharing of opinions, knowledge and experience really shouldn't draw an argument, but rather give to us yet another reason to try something new to obtain that elusive perfect group.

Rich in Ca.
 
Lynn said:
Maybe Jackie can inform us about how Lou and Don do things differently when going from 100 200 to 600 and 1,000 yards? Surely they must leave out most of the little tricks that give them small gains? Please point those out for us all to read about.
Do they use flags?
Do they both use March scopes?
Do they both test in Lou's tunnel?
I am sure the rest of the forums visitors want to hear what they do differently so please inform us.
I will link your answers over to the 1,000 yard forum.
Lynn
Click to expand...
jackie quote "The big things are obvious. You can not help but notice a tuner on a barrel, or a scope that is sans knobs, sitting in external adjustable mounts.
But what you can't see is the matching of powder, bullet design, free bore length, sizing techniques, and other small things that many of us are constantly messing around with in order to optimize the components that we have to work with. Most of the times, the gains are in increments that most do not even understand."

lynn....to help you understand why people might question your posts......why would you ask JACKIE what LOU and DON are doing differently ?

why not ask jackie what he does, and then ask lou and don what they are doing and see it there is a difference.
jackie states that there are lots of little things, not as obvious as a tuner, that get done by MANY OF US.

I do not think jackie has ever said a short range benchrest shooter, that happens to shoot long range benchrest, doesn't undersand the short range game, but YOU IMPLY HE HAS.....

slow down, take a deep breath, and just look at what you posted.

i do not quite understand your attack on jackie, i do understand him being the better man, and not replying.
mike in co
 
Lynn,
Are Lou and Don shooting tuners at longer ranges? Have they started using them at 1-200? If they are not for either, what do they have to do with a tuner discussion? If they are at the longer and not the shorter maybe there is a reason. If they are using them for both it will be news to me. Obviously they are both very accomplished shooters. I'm not trying to be smart here. I just need some clarification.
Boyd
 
Rich

I have been at the range all day, forming some more "opinions".:D
Seriously, anybody who knows me, and shoots with me, knows that I base all of what I say on this forum on what I garner in Match Shooting, or , at the very least, in serious practice. I do not trust any concept unless it has been proven in The Competitive Arena.
I do try to qualify the majority of my statements with "in my opinion" because I know that what we do is not an exact science. What I try to do is give shooters who monitor this Forum an honest assessment, based on range time, as to the validity of what ever I am trying at the moment.........jackie
 
Lynn said:
Boyd I don't think you are being smart.You asked a question.I have never seen Don or Lou shoot a tuner on anything they own.
I was responding to Jackies post were he said MANY shooters think of tuners as the holy grail and MOST shooters don't understand the small gains one sees in a well tuned rifle.I am paraphrasing here so don't quote me.

Ok, I won't quote you but I will quote Jackie whom you misquoted: "From reading the previous post on the subject, I still get the feeling that many shooters think that a tuner is some sort of magic pill that will allow you to just sit down and shoot at a competitive level with no thought of ever having to change anything.
I have made it plain in all of my post that in my opinion, a tuner is simply another weapon in the tuning arsenal."

How you jump from that statement to your conclusion that he is talking about Don or Lou is beyond my comprehension. And, for what its worth, I agree with Jackie that most shooters don't understand the small increments we competitive BR shooters are striving for. For example, I often shoot groups at the local range that I'm really not happy with and have folks at the public range comment how great they are.

I shoot with Don and Lou and in my opinion they understand the tune as well as Jackie does.I was not trying to attack Jackie I simply disagree with his premise emphaticly.

Actually, I think it was my premise, not Jackie's -- which you've taken out of context, that is, that Lou tries more combos than most can fathom. I haven't talked to Lou about this topic lately, but about a year or so ago he was shooting every morning before he headed to work. That's dedication that most cannot fathom.

I merely pointed these two shooters out because they have been there and done that and yes they shoot longrange as well.They have put bullets to paper.They also both know Mike Marcelli whom Jackie posted to.

They are also two very seasoned BR competitors and not "most shooters." Lets see, Lou just crushed everyone at the Cactus and Don has 6 HOF points. Why you would seek to analogize these two to "most shooters" makes no sense to me.

I guess I am giving too much credit to my fellow shooters but in my opinion most shooters know there is no such thing as the holy grail.

Lets see. No Holy Grail:

"My dear friends:

Muzzle devices are the greatest improvement in accuracy in mine, and your, lifetime......

Before long, you will not be able to win, without one...they are that important." http://benchrest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50890

Humm, I guess your pal Bill disagrees with you.

Also in my opinion most shooters realise it doesn't take much to finish first over fifth place because the competition is that good and that close.One slip will move you down the line very quickly.

Again so I am clear on this Lou and Don were merely mentioned to debunk Jackie's assertion that MOST shooters don't understand the tune.There notoriety and accomplishments speaks for themselves if I need to list a slew of names let me know and I will do so.

Obviously by your description, Don and Lou are not "most shooters."

Lynn
Click to expand...

See bold text.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top