The death of 1-4's?

[kellyn]

I don't see the 1-4X scope dying off anytime soon. Is the 1-6X or 1-8X an advantage? Maybe ever so slightly so. Of course, I still use an archaic 1.5-5X MR/T. But people will perceive the 1-6X as TOTALLY better and NECESSARY to improve their scores when they'd be way better off building up their zeroes and working on trigger control. I know that I LIKE to engage 300 yards targets more at 6X than 4X but I also KNOW my scores are the same. Taking your Burris 1-4X scope off and mounting a Leupold Mark 6 is not going to propel you from 50th place to 10th place. It probably won't propel you from 50th to 49th. But it will be good for Leupold!

One thing I do know, the sport needs to be geared around the average shooter and his 16 inch M4 copy with an Aimpoint, particularly at the local level. The 4 MOA rule is a good one as is requiring that targets be visible so iron sight and 1X optic guys can engage them. People struggle mightily at local and even major matches on Larues at 300, I don't think we need to make it harder on them. If stages are so difficult that you need a JP CTR 02 with a Swaro 1-6X it will severly limit the sport's growth.

Now for major matches, I'm a little more willing to accept difficult target presentations (in terms of target size NOT visibility) but I still think 4 MOA is a pretty good standard.

[Sleepswithdogs]

+1 MarkCO

Yes, for the most part one can not buy success, though I have seen it done at least once. I knew a lady in south Florida who competed in Schutzhund. She was one of the worst dog handlers and the worst dog trainer I ever saw. She had a dog trainer who was one of the best in the nation. He would bring the dog to the show or get it to her just before the show. Then she would compete with the dog and do very, very well. Competed on a world wide basis. (He picked out the dog for her, trained it for her and kept it for her, and her husband paid for all of it.) However the dog had to go back to the trainer immediately or she would screw the training up.

As far as guns goes, one can not buy success. In fact there are advantages in buying middle of the road equipment and out growing it. This also works well in race cars and race motorcycles. Compete for a while on a budget until you gain some skill and know what equipment is going to work for you.

Few things look worse than some yahoo who shows up with a 5k gun and can't shoot. Or a very expensive race car and can't drive! Once I was able to pass a turbo Porsche every lap driving a Vega. He'd blow by me on the straight and I'd pass him back on the infield turns.

Success is built with three things; practice, talent and equipment. Like an equation balance can be achieved with differing amounts of these ingredients but it does take some amount of all 3.

Tar

Edited July 26, 2012 by Sleepswithdogs

[1chota]

I don't see the 1-4X scope dying off anytime soon. Is the 1-6X or 1-8X an advantage? Maybe ever so slightly so. Of course, I still use an archaic 1.5-5X MR/T. But people will perceive the 1-6X as TOTALLY better and NECESSARY to improve their scores when they'd be way better off building up their zeroes and working on trigger control. I know that I LIKE to engage 300 yards targets more at 6X than 4X but I also KNOW my scores are the same. Taking your Burris 1-4X scope off and mounting a Leupold Mark 6 is not going to propel you from 50th place to 10th place. It probably won't propel you from 50th to 49th. But it will be good for Leupold!

One thing I do know, the sport needs to be geared around the average shooter and his 16 inch M4 copy with an Aimpoint, particularly at the local level. The 4 MOA rule is a good one as is requiring that targets be visible so iron sight and 1X optic guys can engage them. People struggle mightily at local and even major matches on Larues at 300, I don't think we need to make it harder on them. If stages are so difficult that you need a JP CTR 02 with a Swaro 1-6X it will severly limit the sport's growth.

Now for major matches, I'm a little more willing to accept difficult target presentations (in terms of target size NOT visibility) but I still think 4 MOA is a pretty good standard.

Brother Kelly: as always your words ring true. Some other sage also said: "scopes don't make one shoot better, they help one to see better." i say "here, here, to the 4 MOA targets placed where they are visible to all shooters". now, let us go shoot them!