BradEngmann

Hey Phil, I should be able to make it this year. To everyone else that hasn't tried it yet, the Pro-Am is probably the most fun match you'll shoot all year. However, FYI, the match is NOT on the USPSA website under "Special Matches." That's how I found out about it in 2010, so you might get a little more participation if it's linked.

I think that a big thank you is due to the staff and match coordinators. Area 2 went exceptionally smoothly this year. Excellent stage design, no safety issues, and professional ROs. One testament to their hard work which amazed me was that all the stages were torn down and put away literally an hour after the awards! Nicely done.

I was fortunate enough to be placed on the same squad as Phil, Matt, Bob, Dave, Ben, et al. I shot the same ammo as Phil out of a Glock 17- boxed Atlanta Arms. Since it was a borrowed gun, I chronoed right before I left for the match. On average I was in the low to mid 130s in about 75 degree heat. At the match I barely scratched by at 126.1. Regardless on the explanation (and the ROs were very professional, friendly and accomodating) I believe that Matt and Phil got unlucky with their power factors. It happens but it's too bad that a couple of great shooters would be taken out of the match by chance. There's no way that any shooters were skirting the line so to speak. Everyone has to chrono and it would be foolish to leave such a small margin or error intentionally. Any suggestions that they would cheat with their ammo only can originate from simple minds.

Congrats to Iain! That guy was a hard-nosed competitor and certainly deserved it. Chris is no slouch either, and again, he made some of the most impressive shots on the show. Try shooting a 9lb double action trigger at a nail on National TV with 10 rounds practice! But it was great shooting, and I respect both of those guys immensely! JJ went out with class- which is what he's all about. That guy never swears, and is one of the most humble, honest guys I've ever met. And he's going to kick my ass in Piru next week!

One thing which you didn't see on TV was that the Beretta had to be fired in double action from 25 feet! Blake says that he just didn't know when the shot was going to break and pulled it low. He certainly took it like a man though.

Right on Ed, I appreciate it. I just hope more people join the sport once they look it up and realize how absolutely awesome it is. I'm planning on setting up a Top Shot theme at the next match at my home range when I'm Match Director. We'll have all the props!

Hi everyone, just wanted to post my response to my experiences on the show, as well as my impressions of Episode 7. First off, since I've been on the show, I've heard a lot of positive feedback about those who originally were anti/apathetic about guns actually wanting to go to the range. Undoubtedly, Top Shot has been good for shooting sports in general. As I've said in the past, mainstream appeal is tremendously important and should not be underestimated. Some may disagree, such as the author of a recent letter to Front Sight & Phil Strader on the "political correctness" of shifting to amoeba targets exclusively rather than the torso ones. (I think the writer makes illogical slippery slope arguments but I digress) USPSA is a sport, but it remains a fringe sport. Most shooters don't know who we are or what we're about, much less the general population. So, expanding the potential audience is always better. With the above being said, one major thing that I'm disappointed in is my portrayal as a USPSA shooter. I understand that I represent the sport, and I really did go on the show with the intention of positively demonstrating its values and integrity. Obviously that did not happen. Since the show's been on the air, fellow competitors have given me a few jabs here and there, all of which have been hilarious. In fact, James Ong just made a "USPSA Grandmaster" shirt with a crossed out bow and arrow and wore it to the Golden Bullet this year. (Yes, it's on Facebook) However, I feel that USPSA guys understand and are in the know. The rest of the country is not, and I've read quite a bit of hate around the Internet directed at me. While I really don't personally care about what some hobbyist who's never been in a match before thinks, it does bother me to know that some of that rancor is being reflected towards my home organization and competitive sports in general. What was not shown on TV was the camaraderie amongst the members of the house, the full scope of everything that went down, the pranks between me, Pete, JJ, and Blake, or any of that. According to the show, I have no sense of humor, no sense of honor, and would curse out a waitress if I got too much dressing on my salad. I think the negative was focused on way too much. People need catharsis with the characters, and anger is a powerful emotion. However, notice I never spoke poorly of my fellow competitors. Ever. It's my firm belief that IPSC shooters are some of the best in the world. No, not all of us can put a quarter size group at 600 yards, but in terms of a mix of speed and accuracy, we're unparalleled. Most other shooting sports have a strong focus on repetition, not just in the techniques, but in the actual competitions as well. Every stage for us is different and every stage is a unique skill test. This is not to say those sports aren't hard, and I definitely have lots of respect for those competitors. But to use a golf analogy, it's kind of like one type of golfer hitting 10,000 shots with the driver at a pin 300 yards away trying for the hole in one, while another wants to play a crazy 18 out of sand, water, mud, and rough terrain. But being on the show gave me an appreciation for the difficulties of the various other disciplines and the skill it takes to be good at any one of them. Yes, even archery! In my time on the show, I didn't feel like I got the opportunity to demonstrate what I could do. This is especially true for guys like Mike, Blake and JJ, who are simply ridiculous in terms of talent and are in a different league. The latter two didn't even get the chance to shoot half the time while I was there, and certainly not in events where their true abilities could shine. The challenges were accuracy based, required no movement, and were completed with guns that we got pretty much no practice with. Additionally, most of that practice time was spent figuring out where the gun was shooting. The one chance I did have to shoot fast was on the Peacemaker, which unfortunately involved both teams' guns breaking prior to the event, and us having to use a new gun for the challenge. I missed my first couple of shots because the gun required a 6 o'clock hold while I used a center hold. I had to figure that out on the clock. Hell, JJ even ADed on that stage because we were only allowed to load 5 into the gun and he thought he was on an empty cylinder. Of course the keyboard commandos are going to laugh that one up because someone who has a problem with something they've never done before automatically is horrible at everything in spite of any previous achievements. I do want to respond to the "making excuses" part. This has really really bothered me, but how do you react when someone accuses you of that? You just sound like you're "making more excuses" when you explain what actually happened. Some would attribute expounding on the misses with the Peacemaker or mistakes resulting from lack of familiarity with the gun to "trying to cover up his sucking." This irritated me to no end with what happened to Mike Seeklander and still does to this day. "Yeah, he must really suck, and it couldn't possibly be the rifle's fault." If you honestly believe that, then you're a *bleeping* idiot. I never make excuses for my performance or blame the equipment when I mess up in a match (and Mike certainly does not). I do complain, and get pissy, and whine and moan. A lot. However, I'm only hard on myself for failing when I know I should have done better. It drives me to train more and train harder. But when there's a legitimate issue, then how can you explain that without sounding petulant? What I was actually complaining about in Episode 2 was not the fact that it was a Beretta. That's just silly. I was complaining about the fact that I knew I had to represent USPSA with a gun I didn't consider reliable or have time to test. The argument I made while I was there is that the performance curve is logarithmic, and your natural ability determines the slope of that curve. In other words, some people get better faster, but there's a lot of variance in performance when doing something new. I also didn't know there were going to be teams or voting and was unhappy with the fact that it was not a pure shooting contest. I later decided that I was complaining too much (with Adam's advice) and accepted the competition for what it was and by remaining positive I ended up enjoying the experience a whole lot more. Now, as per episode 7. One thing which was not shown is that I actually volunteered to go into elimination for my team. I asked both Pete and Denny to put me against Kelly. My rationale was based on multiple factors. (Or according to the Internet, we're all idiots that can't think about anything, while the passive viewer who was not there could easily have made a more informed decision) Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't because I "performed the worst." I just missed one of those cans and grazed the top but didn't break it. I thought that missing three cans thrown into the air didn't make me the weakest shooter on the team. We put Kelly on the hard ones because due to a misunderstanding we thought that the half size cans were bonus targets and you only got one shot. Kelly did the worst in practice so we thought that was the safest play. Also, I was out there practicing with the rest of my Red Team with that plastic picture holder that resembled a gun, so I knew where everyone stood. The reason I volunteered is because I didn't want Pete and Denny to go. Pete didn't deserve to, so I stood up and went in Denny's place. Per voting for Kelly, none of us saw him as strong with a pistol, or anything that required speed. However, we did see him as a threat in case there was a distance shootoff where he would have a distinct advantage. (I called him the Spy in Stratego). So I decided to try and take him out so I wouldn't have to face him in his specialty. I also was getting really tired of not shooting for days. Did I believe Kelly was the weakest all-around shooter on the team? Yes I did at that point. We thought that speed was going to be a factor in future events and he couldn't shoot fast. Plus he missed a bunch of shots at those playing cards with all the time in the world. However, there were two things I knew about Kelly then, and still do now. First off, he can certainly handle pressure, which is consistent with his top notch performance as a distance rifle shooter. He doesn't crack. The second is that he's a competitor, and a smart one. He has the drive to be good at what he sets his mind to. For example, even though at his current skill level he wouldn't do very well in USPSA, if he really wanted to take it up, I'm convinced he could be a state level contender in a relatively short period of time. Speed isn't something you practice in his discipline, but he could build it up very quickly. The amusing part about the show is that people couldn't figure out what type of game it should be. I could have played ruthlessly to win the $100,000 but I wanted to shoot. Adam tried that strategy and got rebuked on here heavily for it. His goal was to win the game because he knew it wouldn't be decided on shooting ability alone. On a statistical basis, Caleb would have lost to Blake and JJ, but he wanted to shoot against them anyways. I wouldn't have voted for them either even though I knew they were both better shooters. So should I have made an alliance with Denny and put Pete against Kelly? Should I have made an alliance with Pete to put Denny in? Sure, I could have done either, but I wanted to go and shoot against Kelly where I thought the chances were in my favor. Of course it didn't go that way, but there was a big element of uncertainty. Neither of us had ever thrown and shot skeet before. When I threw in practice I used my legs a lot, but when I had to hold the shotgun, I short-stroked my throws. Kelly evidently overcame that by practicing with the rifle in the courtyard. Although I did redeem myself while I was hanging out with Blake in Louisiana while trying a different throwing technique. No cameras of course! In any case, how could I summarize my experiences on the show? Well I'm not famous, I can tell you that. Maybe it's because I live in San Francisco and nobody watches it out here. I didn't win any money. What I did get is the chance to meet and live with some amazing people, all of whom I consider to be my good friends. I also witnessed my dark side a little bit, and learned that people will remember your character far more than your performance. I look forward to spending lots of time proving to people that I'm actually not a huge dick. I also learned that mindset is a giant element of not just the game of shooting but of life as well. And what more appropriate place to leave that message than on the Enos forums?

I'm sure there's lots of juicy stuff from the Blue team as well, but they keep winning, so no one from that team goes to the final challenge.... they are carefully constructing the show to add drama behind what they know will be the showdown of the 2 shooters in the final challenge, IMHO. Now, if we have an epsisode where from the start the blue team members are being featured more, and arguing with each other, with lots of "interesting" sound bites.... guess what, bet you the blue team will lose that day, and have to elimante someone. Just guessing. Actually the red team got together and strategized about this. We said "hmmm, so the show is only 45 minutes long and they have to squeeze in practice, challenges, and eliminations, and allow the audience to make sense of everything." So we thought maybe we should all lose the first few challenges in order to maximize our screen time! It was a crafty, devious plan, but it worked! So the whining was also part of the strategy? As a matter of fact, I'm a Grandmaster archer too. I only took up pistols and rifles because I knew I would look like more of a badass. I actually didn't tell my team about the whining strategy; just did it at the last moment to steal all of their interview time.

I'm sure there's lots of juicy stuff from the Blue team as well, but they keep winning, so no one from that team goes to the final challenge.... they are carefully constructing the show to add drama behind what they know will be the showdown of the 2 shooters in the final challenge, IMHO. Now, if we have an epsisode where from the start the blue team members are being featured more, and arguing with each other, with lots of "interesting" sound bites.... guess what, bet you the blue team will lose that day, and have to elimante someone. Just guessing. Actually the red team got together and strategized about this. We said "hmmm, so the show is only 45 minutes long and they have to squeeze in practice, challenges, and eliminations, and allow the audience to make sense of everything." So we thought maybe we should all lose the first few challenges in order to maximize our screen time! It was a crafty, devious plan, but it worked!

Actually going into the competition we knew pretty much nothing about what was going to happen. As a matter of fact we didn't even know that there were going to be teams until Colby told us! Ultimately the funny part about the editing here was that I wasn't actually complaining about the grip angle (even though I got heavily ribbed by everyone in the house for the overwraught explaination of the difference between Glock and Beretta). What I was annoyed about at that point was the amount of practice time/ammo allotted us. I had even a good diatribe about the performance curve being logarithmic and so forth (I can see Adam rolling his eyes now) with time on the X axis and ability on the Y axis with skill level determining the slope! Per the grip angle, I actually did like 30 practice reloads with the Beretta because I didn't want to be Mr. IPSC shooter and throw a magazine into an HD camera on a stage! And yes, I wince as well whenever I hear the IPSC GM comment. As Ben put it on his website, there are GMs, and then there are GMs. I know I stand firmly in the former category for now. Per the longbow yeah, it definitely threw everybody a curveball. We knew we'd see something like it at some point but not how or when. Going in, I thought I would probably be okay with it, but as Tara said, it's completely out of our comfort zones. JJ owned it, plain and simple. He's the type of person with a lot of natural talent and a very very tough competitor. I honestly wasn't surprised when he nailed the shot. Concerning Bill, there was a lot of tension between him and Kelly. It wasn't just that one comment, which everyone pretty much agrees would have been taken in bad taste, but could be forgiven. I always knew what to expect from Bill. He's a very direct guy, but he would tell you to your face how he felt- which is something very rare these days. He even invited Kelly on his radio show this Thursday where they're both going to chat about what happened. I know they've made amends which causes me to give them both a great deal of respect for their mutual integrity.

Darren, this was actually kind of what I thought the show would be like going in to it, because I was thinking from own personal biases. When you look at Top Shot through the lens of a "shooting show marketed to non-shooters" the reality TV format makes more sense. However, what you propose would be a great idea for a network like the Sportsman Channel or Outdoor Channel; those have a much higher population of shooters and gun nuts. Admittedly though, one of these days I'd like to see USPSA covered on ESPN, I think we're a ways away from that. I agree with Caleb. We actually found out about the team format literally as soon as the cameras were rolling, but this method appeals to a considerably larger demographic and makes sense from that perspective. I think that for mainstream TV, there has to be an angle about the shooting, with some sort of flair. While the shooting "Olympics" with all those different disciplines would be exciting as competitors, I believe that it would still draw primarily a niche audience on television. Personalities need to play a role for now, and therefore the competitions need to be kept small. To the average viewer, watching someone shoot anything in real life is not very exciting, in spite of the difficulty. (This is due to preconceived notions about how hard things are, in addition to the repetitiveness) It's the equivalent of watching an hour long contest of people making half court basketball shots. It's hard, but it's the same thing every time. This would also be exacerbated if Hollywood produced movies of people making these incredible shots with one hand consistently. I watch a ton of match videos (one of my favorites for draw/technique is this one: ) but would your wife or girlfriend or even non-shooter buddy want to? And these guys are the best in the world at that. Hell, even Combat Missions with Rudy sank because people were expecting guys rappelling out of helicopters and stylized impossible shooting. An interesting topic would be why is golf so popular to watch, and shooting isn't? They suffer from many of the same viewability problems. I think it's because lots of people play golf, especially wealthy people, and there's a lot of money in it. It's a corporate, mainstream sport, while shooting isn't....YET.

Thanks for the warm welcome! Yeah I know how it is. If I was the one watching, then I'd be doing plenty of armchair QBing as well. I've become a firm proponent of the phrase "it is what it is." But feel free to dish out anything you guys feel, I won't take it personally, and the best I can respond with is some context. And thanks for the support Adam- you've been the (un)official Top Shot PR rep across the Internet!

So I figured I'd be getting lit up online this morning, some of which is deserved, but I thought I'd give my impressions to what went down with the Beretta challenge. And yes, I did look like a total dick. First off in regards to my Glock fanboydom, I can say that it's partially true. At that point I could think of a bunch of possibilities that would be considered more representative of a modern handgun (2011 to striker fired polymer). I didn't mean to speak ill of the Beretta in its entirety though, even for USPSA. Hell, Ben can still kick my ass with one! Everyone is correct in that it's all about the shooter behind the equipment. That being said, even though I'll be shooting my Glock in Area 1, I'm actually probably switching to CZ because I have small hands and it simply fits them better. The Glock sits at an angle off the web of my hand because the frame is large (and in Cali, we can't buy the Gen4). As far as that particular gun was concerned, I really did think that it was shooting to the right. I could have been wrong, but Bill and I keyholed a 1 inch group when we first shot it to dial it in. Now again, it's an unfamiliar gun to me, and I could have just been consistently pushing the shots over there. However, out of the 20 rounds I got, I had to shoot some fast because I had no idea what the challenge would be like. (IPSC course vs accuracy?) I had a pretty good idea of where it was shooting for me, but I'm very compulsive about these things (especially on national TV, where I'm supposed to be a pistol expert) and was worried about not being sure of its point of impact. On the first shot, I aimed at the left edge of the target and clipped the wood on the right. On my second shot, I aimed 1.5 inches off to the left and drilled it. Bill missed his next shot right, and I told him where to aim, and he delivered. As with what happened with Mike, it's our responsibility as competitors to account for our equipment. Regardless of why it was shooting right for me (and I think it there's still a good chance it was my fault), I knew where it was grouping and should have hit the target on the first hit. That being said, in retrospect, it was wrong for me to start bitching about the gun. I was just worried about missing and looking like an idiot in front of 4 million people. (Both of which I did anyways) Although some things, like the comment about the sights being worn, were in response to a question by another competitor about if the gun for the elimination and the team challenge were the same. The elimination gun was different, which I could tell because it had newer sights. Per the elimination challenge, Ben Stoeger is correct (as he's mentioned on other forums), I should have hit more targets. The first run was a blur, but the second run I should have done much better. (They removed the closest two targets which gave us fewer scoring opportunities.) Out of the gate, I drilled three for three. However, I got hung up dropping two rounds at the bonus target on the left because I thought I was way ahead. The zipline went faster than expected, and I had to rush to catch up on the right. I was stupid (as I said on the show) and should have just cleaned the right side when I had time. I honestly thought Frank was going to beat me after that run. I want to clarify one more thing. I have the utmost respect for the experts in my sport, like Ben and Matt. You can see their scores in comparison to mine, I don't need to explain that they're better than me at this game. I'm actually a fresh GM (which I got pretty much by accident at two consecutive matches by good classifier runs in the end of 2009) and have yet to really perform at that level after having only done USPSA for 3 years. I've been training hard to live up to the title. As a matter of fact, some of the advice Matt gave me on the show has led me to change my entire shooting mechanics. (See my shoulder hunch and head movement) There's a lot of progress to be made in a lot of capacities, but we'll see how it goes. And by the way, the Brad vs. Door video was hilarious!