sslav

There seems to be some resistance to answering this question as well as the ones about Steel Challenge, ProAm, GSSF. I think we all know the answer though. And yet there is this unfounded belief that with us it will be different! It seems that we have now entered into a religious argument. Which is against forum guidelines. Maybe it is time to close this thread. Curling ... nuff said.

Are you still talking about biathlon? Or is IPSC is on TV every week? Regardless. I your part of the world you already can not use practical metric targets. What is your interest in banning it in our part of the world?

If Biathlon had to get into the Olympics today it would have a snowballs chance in hell all the colored spandex and abstract targets notwithstanding. dont know about that but I dont know any station that broadcasts winter warefare training but several that do biathlon You are mistaken. You can find biathlon only during the Olympics ... I guess. I have not actually seen it on TV in years. It is about as exciting to watch as ... well practical shooting. You can find something on arctic warfare on history channel with some regularity. But why talk biathlon at all. IPSC has now completely banned practical metric targets. So: Colorful clothing - check. Abstract targets - check. TV time.... Major Corporate sponsorship .... Olympic participation ... Case closed.

If Biathlon had to get into the Olympics today it would have a snowballs chance in hell all the colored spandex and abstract targets notwithstanding.

Wouldn't out of battery cause a vertical displacement of the dimple? Here it is displaced horizontally. I would check the striker and the striker channel.

Except you stole our parking spot. Nice match guys, would shoot again, and we placed surprisingly well. I'd love to see the actual scores to see how well we really did. Same here on all counts - except the parking spot.

You seem to be stating that as a fact. I would say that at best it is a theory that requires validation. 1. Has any representative of USPSA been told by any TV executive that they would televise our events if we would only use the classic target instead of the metric target? 2. Have other similar events not using humanoid targets (Steel Challenge, ProAm, GSSF) gotten TV time? 3. IPSC has done away with the metric target. When are we going to start seeing IPSC matches on TV?

I do not believe this approach would ever work work and here is why - how do you balance the points? Any balance will be entirely match specific. Magnified optic will give you a lot of advantage at longer ranges. If a match has a lot of long range shots the value of the magnification will be more. If it is all relatively shot range, the value of variable power is zero and may be negative. If shotgun stages require a lot of reloading box fed shotguns will have more of an advantage. If it requires no reloads or mixing of different types of rounds box fed guns will have less of an advantage and may even be at a disadvantage. etc...

Accepting everything that was stated with regards to compliance with rules, sometimes things do slip through. If the problem got noticed before shooting started and there is a quick fix - great. If the problem is noticed after shooting started and there is a quick fix and it still presents exactly the same shooting challenge to all the shooters - great. Otherwise, as long as it is safe and presents an equitable shooting challenge, just shoot it, score it and move on. As a shooter, I do not want a match reduced by 15%-20% - whether or not I shot the stage already. As a designer/builder having my effort wasted is demotivating.

It's a 1911 Division, not a single column magazine division. Read the description in the rules. I am well aware of that. I said "Would allowing other single stacks..." - thus indicating my understanding that they are currently not allowed. But if the division is hurting for participation perhaps expanding it to allow other single stacks may remedy that.

In some cases it may be the chicken and the egg thing. I might shoot SS more if there were more competitors in the division. There are probably others out there who think the same. Would allowing other single stacks besides 1911 in the division boost participation?

Why persist with the connection between targets and growth? What are the target groups of this growth? Who are we trying to attract to the sport? Has anyone done a meaningful survey of these target groups to determine what would encourage their participation? The same questions go for the sponsors. Instead it seems like the proposal to ban the metric target is motivated entirely by unproven assumptions.

And yet in the list of all those sponsors there is not one major corporation that is not a firearms manufacturer. So where is that mystical corporate sponsorship? What does steel challenge need to do to get it? Go from rectangular and round plates to ovals and triangles? Paint targets pink? Make contestants wear plaid pants? If you want to change someone's opinion you need to support your position with facts. If facts are lacking how do you expect to change people's minds? Corporations do not sponsor anything out of goodness of their hearts. They do it for advertising. Our sport will never attract the kind of participation and spectator levels that would warrant big time corporate sponsorship. Steel challenge and ProAm might. If they do it will not be because of the target shapes or any other silliness but simply they are more visually interesting for spectators. Period, end of story.

+1 At the VA/MD sectional last month there were 85 shooters in production compared to 70 in Limited and 48 in open.

Sean, you keep on saying that. But the facts do not support your statements. As was previously stated many times over Steel challenge and ProAm do not have targets that represent human beings. Furthermore they are both more spectator friendly. Where is the major corporate sponsorship for these events? What is holding them up this time? Why would they magically appear when we ban the metric target? (BTW I love the idea of naming it "Practical Target"). You are yet to answer these questions. Instead you are repeating "If you change it they will come" like a mantra. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. Where is the deep chess strategy here?

I was a little perplexed by that strategy as well. With the two that ended up in the elimination challenge the red team lost no matter what the outcome was.

I shoot a G-35 in production. My load is 180 gr Zero JHP over 3 gr of Clays at 1.135 OAL. It just chronoed at 138 PF at Virginia Maryland which is a bit higher than what it chronoes for me. It is very soft.

Now I do not see a point of Shake Weight For Men

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

And apparently I am not the only one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9993iJlYU&feature=related :roflol: :roflol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S3C4AC908w

At the NY state rifle match last week they had black targets in front of white backers on the long range stage. They did not paint between each shooter but target visibility was not an issue and I went pretty close to last in my squad. For the up-close stages, there is no reason not to paint before each shooter.

"Your Registration code number is: 23" Had to double and triple check the e-mail this morning to make sure I was not dreaming!

Thanks Bill & Chris. Exactly what I was looking for. For some reason the USPSA site stops at 2004. Slav

What the subject says. Just got curious and wanted to see who the best shooters were through the history of USPSA.