• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Ripcurl, this thread is just 1/64 MOA from being troll bait.


I know you didn't intend that either. You were thinking something, and wanted to discuss it. Your only question is at the end about how should you spend your money from here forward. I'm going to address that.

You have a cheep scope. But it works. So spend your money on ammo and classes. Find someone who can make you better. Better with what you have. Some day you will have a complaint. You don't know what it is now, but you will. When you do spend your cash on that. Until then ammo and classes.

It is that simple. There is nothing else. After time you will find a complaint. You will. Then fix it when you do. Until then nothing matters but you and if you are making the shots you want.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Damnit Eric.... you baited me.

I have been sport bike and off road riding for YEARS. I have never seen a rider without bling. Not one!

Some of the fastest Dbags out there would ride with things that would only slow them down because it looked cool. They were good enough to still whoop ass.....

I have never seen a full chrome plated GT3, but I have seen a bajillion busa's and other such bikes. Don't tell me that bike racing is pure. It is more about the rider than in automobile racing, but that is it's damn fault too.

I am 6'2, I will never, ever, ever ever ever ever ride as fast as someone of 1/2 my skill who is only 1/3 my weight and 5'5". Unless they let us ride bikes with HP and ergo's that match our weight. And then I will still chew tires faster.

Bike riders are the girliest bunch of nancy boys out there.....But I don't give a damn, I sill love sliding my back tire through a turn. I just don't try to play on a track now.

I'm old.


/rant
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CanPopper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If spotting bullet holes at 200 is your objective, both the Bushnell HDMR and SWFA 5-20x50mm HD can accomplish that easily. You don't really need to drop $2K to $3K.
</div></div>

+1 - I completely agree. If you want to get into precision shooting at 1,000 yards, then great glass is a must (if you can't see it, you can't hit it
cool.gif
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Quick point on modern rifles, ammunition and glass: we now expect results that 30 odd years ago shooters could only dream about. We also tend to shoot heavy rifles, rarely venture from the prone or bench; and have to make tiny little groups. Every rifle seems to have a bipod permanently attached. Real marksmanship and the ability to shoot from all positions has taken a back seat. We also expect calibres to perform far further than they were ever intended to be shot.

A lot of this is due to the recent ability to utilize high magnification through superior glass. However, with good light even mid range glass can give a sight picture way beyond the capability of the rest: be it human, ammunition or rifle.

I have both a Bushnel and Leupold that on a good day will give me a sight picture that will take my 308 out as far as that calibre can go. My Zeiss scopes only pay dividends when conditions are poor (same as any other higher quality make. Their tracking gives me confidence too). But any of the above scopes in good light and conditions will give me the same score on targets. Under 300m they will all give me tiny groups and over 300m then its my reading the wind that matters. The scopes give little if no advantage over each other.

FFP or SFP, reticle choice, size of objective, tube size, or parallax will only give so much advantage and really just to be more dedicated to a particular type of shoot. All give basically a great sight picture to concentrate on, the rest is personal choice.

Best glass is nice for older eyes as said but the investment is only really worth it in poorer light conditions. Other benefits too once away from the range; like robustness and reliable tracking. But even then unless going long long range nearly any half decent scope with modern glass will do at normal field ranges. Highest magnification is only needed to shoot tiny targets and too much magnification can be a bad thing. Too high magnification can over emphasizes the natural shooter's wobble and does slow every thing down. Take too long over a shot by trying to get too many things perfect and the results are usually worse than if you just got on with it. Too high magnification can have you fretting that everything isn't perfect enough and in your desperation to better things you end up caursing even more problems.

I say if you only shoot on a range, in bright conditions and have all day to take the shot then any high mag mid ranged scope will work just fine.

High investment in best equipment is nice but often more range/trigger time would be better. I know a top shot that uses very average equipment and wins because he knows how to shoot and average equipment is more than adequate to get the job done. Why spend more?

Unless you are in a benchrest competition then if your rifle set up shoots to 1/2 an inch or so at 100m then thats more than adequate for nearly anything. Only buy a new stock if its going to fit you better than what you have (a cheek piece might be all that you need). Only change the trigger if its effecting good shot release (most triggers at around 21/2 -3 lbs are fine once you spend some time to know them).

I say once a rifle is set up and zeroed, all bolted down correctly, then its rare for them to ever go astray. Usually, its the conditions, or the shooter thats behind the reason for any POI changes.... so why does everyone start fiddling and blaming their kit??? I say leave the rifle alone and concentrate on the conditions.

I am a gun snob and like pretty rifles and expensive optics but some of my finest shooting and nearly all the silver I won when I did compete was with some pretty mediocre equipment; but that is all I could afford at the time. When I was good it was because I did a lot of trigger time.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VJJPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FALex</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this brings up a great point...yesterday, a friend and I were out shooting ground squirrels at around 150-200 yards (our favorite pasttime here in Southern ID). I have a Leupold 3-9 on my 17 Hummer, he has a Schmitty on his Savage .22LR (I know, I know, lucky bastard!). While he is busy telling me "this squirrel is eating...that squirrel is dropping a ducket..." I am busy asking him, "what squirrels, where?"

It was at this point, that I contemplated whipping out the credit card to have a Schmitty delivered to our firing position, so I could enjoy the same details!

Honestly, I am far from shooting like 100% of the members on here, but, I still wouldn't mind a Schmitty, Premier, USO, etc...sitting on my .22lr!
smile.gif


At least when I missed, with gear like this, I would know it was still me! HAHA!!

Buy what makes you happy, dude. </div></div>

what power was the "schmitty"? </div></div>

he was using a 4-16. His power was at 10x, when I had mine at 7.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SheepsClothes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Damnit Eric.... you baited me.

I have been sport bike and off road riding for YEARS. I have never seen a rider without bling. Not one!

Some of the fastest Dbags out there would ride with things that would only slow them down because it looked cool. They were good enough to still whoop ass.....

I have never seen a full chrome plated GT3, but I have seen a bajillion busa's and other such bikes. Don't tell me that bike racing is pure. It is more about the rider than in automobile racing, but that is it's damn fault too.

I am 6'2, I will never, ever, ever ever ever ever ride as fast as someone of 1/2 my skill who is only 1/3 my weight and 5'5". Unless they let us ride bikes with HP and ergo's that match our weight. And then I will still chew tires faster.

Bike riders are the girliest bunch of nancy boys out there.....But I don't give a damn, I sill love sliding my back tire through a turn. I just don't try to play on a track now.

I'm old.


/rant </div></div>


I am talking about Racers, yeah we bling our bikes, but no one ever puts anyone down because of their "inferior" gear, especially if the inferior gear crosses the finish line before you.

I am probably one guy here on The Hide who don't think it's necessary to have premium glass. I have 3 NF's, and I feel they are over kill at times. I have looked through and used Bushnells and Weavers that belonged to others, and they seem just as capable, with glass just as good as my NightForces.

I myself may not need premium glass, but I too am a Fashion Queen and do love the bling! That is why my next scope is going to be a S&B
wink.gif
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wlwaldock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Idk if any of you guys own a Rolex or breitling or any high end automatic watch but if you do you know that they don't keep time for $hit. You can go to the gas station and buy a timex that keeps dramatically better time.

Thus

Anyone who owns a watch nicer than a timex is a fool

</div></div>

Actually you're the fool there. Anyone who owns one of those watches knows that it's about the craftsmanship and quality, not about keeping perfect time. If you can't understand it, then you can't appreciate them.

Similarly, some people like craftsmanship in there hobbies, and it's people who appreciate good craftsmanship and artistry that keep many builders in business.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shooters are all about gear just like the car guys (non-racers).

That's what I miss about motorcycle racing...........

Here is a good article on vision as you get older: http://www.allaboutvision.com/over60/vision-changes.htm </div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SheepsClothes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Damnit Eric.... you baited me.

I have been sport bike and off road riding for YEARS. I have never seen a rider without bling. Not one!

Some of the fastest Dbags out t.....


/rant </div></div>


I am talking about Racers, yeah we bling our bikes, but no one ever puts anyone down because of their "inferior" gear, especially if the inferior gear crosses the finish line before you.

I am probably one guy here on The Hide who don't think it's necessary to have premium glass. I have 3 NF's, and I feel they are over kill at times. I have looked through and used Bushnells and Weavers that belonged to others, and they seem just as capable, with glass just as good as my NightForces.

I myself may not need premium glass, but I too am a Fashion Queen and do love the bling! That is why my next scope is going to be a S&B
wink.gif
</div></div>
what? Maybe in your immediate circle, but otherwise it remains true for the motorcycle world as well. It is not hobby specific, it is specific to the human race to blame things on external reasons, psychology 101.

As far as shooting not being difficult... I would have to disagree again. Your examples are comparing apples and oranges. Your comparing simple shooting at something to winning a race. I can also say being fast in a motorcycle is easy, you give gas and you go, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It is certainly not always skill, for motorcycle racing. As someone else mentioned, his weight is detracting from winning. Or someone might have a faster motorcycle. BUT you are right that in the higher up races, skill is what pulls through. The same can be said about the higher end of shooting competitions though. I would want to see you hang with thee 'best' shooters.

I tihnk you might be mislead by the 'easyness' because it happens all to often that a newer shooter comes and beats out experienced shooters. This does not mean its easy, this just exposes another human fallacy. Everyone thinks their techniques are right and they are an expert at shooting. Experience doesn't mean anything, unless your practicing doing it right. Frank says it best when he says you want to do perfect practice and not just practice. If these 'experienced' shooters have been shooting for 25 years but don't analyze and learn from every shot, then they might as well be beginners. This does NOT mean shooting is easy though. I want you to explain what is easy about making consistent first round hits at distances like a mile (which some shooters can).


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wlwaldock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Idk if any of you guys own a Rolex or breitling or any high end automatic watch but if you do you know that they don't keep time for $hit. You can go to the gas station and buy a timex that keeps dramatically better time.

Thus

Anyone who owns a watch nicer than a timex is a fool

</div></div>

Actually you're the fool there. Anyone who owns one of those watches knows that it's about the craftsmanship and quality, not about keeping perfect time. If you can't understand it, then you can't appreciate them.

Similarly, some people like craftsmanship in there hobbies, and it's people who appreciate good craftsmanship and artistry that keep many builders in business.</div></div>

He was definitly being sarcastic.....
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: timelinex</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shooters are all about gear just like the car guys (non-racers).

That's what I miss about motorcycle racing...........

Here is a good article on vision as you get older: http://www.allaboutvision.com/over60/vision-changes.htm </div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SheepsClothes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Damnit Eric.... you baited me.

I have been sport bike and off road riding for YEARS. I have never seen a rider without bling. Not one!

Some of the fastest Dbags out t.....


/rant </div></div>


I am talking about Racers, yeah we bling our bikes, but no one ever puts anyone down because of their "inferior" gear, especially if the inferior gear crosses the finish line before you.

I am probably one guy here on The Hide who don't think it's necessary to have premium glass. I have 3 NF's, and I feel they are over kill at times. I have looked through and used Bushnells and Weavers that belonged to others, and they seem just as capable, with glass just as good as my NightForces.

I myself may not need premium glass, but I too am a Fashion Queen and do love the bling! That is why my next scope is going to be a S&B
wink.gif
</div></div>
what? Maybe in your immediate circle, but otherwise it remains true for the motorcycle world as well. It is not hobby specific, it is specific to the human race to blame things on external reasons, psychology 101.

As far as shooting not being difficult... I would have to disagree again. Your examples are comparing apples and oranges. Your comparing simple shooting at something to winning a race. I can also say being fast in a motorcycle is easy, you give gas and you go, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It is certainly not always skill, for motorcycle racing. As someone else mentioned, his weight is detracting from winning. Or someone might have a faster motorcycle. BUT you are right that in the higher up races, skill is what pulls through. The same can be said about the higher end of shooting competitions though. I would want to see you hang with thee 'best' shooters.

I tihnk you might be mislead by the 'easyness' because it happens all to often that a newer shooter comes and beats out experienced shooters. This does not mean its easy, this just exposes another human fallacy. Everyone thinks their techniques are right and they are an expert at shooting. Experience doesn't mean anything, unless your practicing doing it right. Frank says it best when he says you want to do perfect practice and not just practice. If these 'experienced' shooters have been shooting for 25 years but don't analyze and learn from every shot, then they might as well be beginners. This does NOT mean shooting is easy though. I want you to explain what is easy about making consistent first round hits at distances like a mile (which some shooters can).


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wlwaldock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Idk if any of you guys own a Rolex or breitling or any high end automatic watch but if you do you know that they don't keep time for $hit. You can go to the gas station and buy a timex that keeps dramatically better time.

Thus

Anyone who owns a watch nicer than a timex is a fool

</div></div>

Actually you're the fool there. Anyone who owns one of those watches knows that it's about the craftsmanship and quality, not about keeping perfect time. If you can't understand it, then you can't appreciate them.

Similarly, some people like craftsmanship in there hobbies, and it's people who appreciate good craftsmanship and artistry that keep many builders in business.</div></div>

He was definitly being sarcastic..... </div></div>

I'm an idiot - I totally missed the sarcasm! Wow!
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

UncleB trust me I love fine design and great engineering, maybe too much!
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I myself think shooting takes no skill[/b] at all if you compare it to other sports like motocross racing, football, basketball, etc.



Old guys generally have bad eyes that is why they need good glass. If you have a 12 year old girl with 20/20 vision, she can look through a TRS and S&B and will not notice a lick of difference in "glass quality" between the 2. Her good eyes can do most of the work, she can naturally see colors and contrast better so she does not need the premium glass.

</div></div>

I would have to disagree with that part. I think great shooters have a skill set, hand/eye coordination just like a great QB, baseball player etc. Some things can't be taught, just refined.

I agree on the vision part. My oldest son has something like 40/20 vision, he can read the bottom line on the chart. He automatically has advantage over most. My other son wears glasses at 10.

Go figure.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: timelinex</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what? Maybe in your immediate circle, but otherwise it remains true for the motorcycle world as well. It is not hobby specific, it is specific to the human race to blame things on external reasons, psychology 101.

As far as shooting not being difficult... I would have to disagree again. Your examples are comparing apples and oranges. Your comparing simple shooting at something to winning a race. I can also say being fast in a motorcycle is easy, you give gas and you go, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It is certainly not always skill, for motorcycle racing. As someone else mentioned, his weight is detracting from winning. Or someone might have a faster motorcycle. BUT you are right that in the higher up races, skill is what pulls through. The same can be said about the higher end of shooting competitions though. I would want to see you hang with thee 'best' shooters.

I tihnk you might be mislead by the 'easyness' because it happens all to often that a newer shooter comes and beats out experienced shooters. This does not mean its easy, this just exposes another human fallacy. Everyone thinks their techniques are right and they are an expert at shooting. Experience doesn't mean anything, unless your practicing doing it right. Frank says it best when he says you want to do perfect practice and not just practice. If these 'experienced' shooters have been shooting for 25 years but don't analyze and learn from every shot, then they might as well be beginners. This does NOT mean shooting is easy though. I want you to explain what is easy about making consistent first round hits at distances like a mile (which some shooters can).
</div></div>

I have raced all over the country, are you telling me in your circle of racers you guys put down someone with inferior gear even though he finishes across the finish line before you? As racers we know there are many things we need to work on besides gear.. in shooting it's all about the gear. In Motocross racing I never upgraded my bike that much from stock form (just suspension work), because I knew there was so much I could improve on, and any upgrade I do would be useless if I did not improve myself first.

To win at the club level, it is very much skill. I have seen fat guys win before, I have seen old guys win. Your weight and age only comes into play at the very top levels, and even here, you can do pretty decent if you are good enough (despite being old and fat). On the flip side, I have seen old guys that bought the $100,000 Suzuki GSXR-1000 Superbike and can do no better than midpack.

In racing, basketball, golfing, football, it's all about the athlete, and not about the gear. In shooting, it's all about the gear.

Yes, I really truly believe you do not need premium optics to compete at the top levels. Also in shooting, I believe anyone can get to the top levels with dedication and practice. I can't say the same for racing, golfing, football, or baskeball... I don't care how much we practice, 99.99999999% won't even make the grid.

Now to keep it on topic.. 1ST Place Baby!

1stplace-vi.jpg
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Hey, isn't that the garage at Watkins? Sure looks like it.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Hey Cartman,

next time you are in the area, how about I give you my AI setup with S&B and I'll use a Remington 700 with a SSHD on it and we'll see who wins...

You're acquainting hitting a target with winning... it's not the same being able to go to a range, flop down and hit a target verses competing on a national level. Most people are very close to each other gear wise and what really separates people is experience, the lack of it shows through.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, isn't that the garage at Watkins? Sure looks like it. </div></div>

No it's not. But a I am sure the same first place trophy would look just as beautiful there too.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Cartman,

next time you are in the area, how about I give you my AI setup with S&B and I'll use a Remington 700 with a SSHD on it and we'll see who wins...

You're acquainting hitting a target with winning... it's not the same being able to go to a range, flop down and hit a target verses competing on a national level. Most people are very close to each other gear wise and what really separates people is experience, the lack of it shows through. </div></div>


Shooting the National Level, all it takes is an investment in time. Anyone can get there and compete at the National level if they dedicate the time. I can't say the same for Golf or Basketball. Actually, I can't even compete at the local playground when it comes to basketball. These kids are ballers!!!! (at least locally they are).
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Cartman,

next time you are in the area, how about I give you my AI setup with S&B and I'll use a Remington 700 with a SSHD on it and we'll see who wins...

You're acquainting hitting a target with winning... it's not the same being able to go to a range, flop down and hit a target verses competing on a national level. Most people are very close to each other gear wise and what really separates people is experience, the lack of it shows through. </div></div>


Shooting the National Level, all it takes is an investment in time. Anyone can get there and compete at the National level if they dedicate the time. I can't say the same for Golf or Basketball. Actually, I can't even compete at the local playground when it comes to basketball. These kids are ballers!!!! (at least locally they are).</div></div>

So every kid who "tries" and invests time and energy into something like Baseball, Football, or Basketball makes a national level team ? Or is there is there a certain skill set they simply don't all have ?

Just like shooting there are people that go to every single match and barely ever break the top 20, there are thousands of people who try who never rank nationally, and that is not for lack of trying.

Straw argument and you have no clue, you found one thing you do well in and think, everything else is a gear race or just a matter of time, ignoring the statistics that not all reach the level same as any sport.

There is shooting in the Olympics, getting a $4k Anschultz rifle will not put you at an Olympic level even if you practice what you think will everyday for a year, the odds are slim you'll reach that level. There is form, technique as with anything else, hitting your marks around the track is the same as hitting your marks during a firing stage.

You're not too bright when it comes to what it actually takes at any sport, let alone shooting.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FALex</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VJJPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FALex</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this brings up a great point...yesterday, a friend and I were out shooting ground squirrels at around 150-200 yards (our favorite pasttime here in Southern ID). I have a Leupold 3-9 on my 17 Hummer, he has a Schmitty on his Savage .22LR (I know, I know, lucky bastard!). While he is busy telling me "this squirrel is eating...that squirrel is dropping a ducket..." I am busy asking him, "what squirrels, where?"

It was at this point, that I contemplated whipping out the credit card to have a Schmitty delivered to our firing position, so I could enjoy the same details!

Honestly, I am far from shooting like 100% of the members on here, but, I still wouldn't mind a Schmitty, Premier, USO, etc...sitting on my .22lr!
smile.gif


At least when I missed, with gear like this, I would know it was still me! HAHA!!

Buy what makes you happy, dude. </div></div>

what power was the "schmitty"? </div></div>

he was using a 4-16. His power was at 10x, when I had mine at 7. </div></div>

so you were on 7X with a lupy that goes to 9X, and he at 10X and your bashing the lupy for not making out squirrels at 150-200 yards, and therefore the s&b is superior? I'm so confused
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Straw argument and you have no clue, you found one thing you do well in and think, everything else is a gear race or just a matter of time, ignoring the statistics that not all reach the level same as any sport. </div></div>

Ask Cartman why he has yellow number plates.
wink.gif
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So every kid who "tries" and invests time and energy into something like Baseball, Football, or Basketball makes a national level team ? Or is there is there a certain skill set they simply don't all have ?

Just like shooting there are people that go to every single match and barely ever break the top 20, there are thousands of people who try who never rank nationally, and that is not for lack of trying.

Straw argument and you have no clue, you found one thing you do well in and think, everything else is a gear race or just a matter of time, ignoring the statistics that not all reach the level same as any sport.

There is shooting in the Olympics, getting a $4k Anschultz rifle will not put you at an Olympic level even if you practice what you think will everyday for a year, the odds are slim you'll reach that level. There is form, technique as with anything else, hitting your marks around the track is the same as hitting your marks during a firing stage.

You're not too bright when it comes to what it actually takes at any sport, let alone shooting. </div></div>

Shooting an Olympic event is funny to me!! Then again, shuffleboard is an Olympic even too, so why not shooting right?
wink.gif


I am sure making the National Olympic Shooting team is quite an accomplishment and takes some skill. I don't want to take anything away from those guys. However, I believe everyone can be a pretty good shooter if you put in the time and effort. Can't say the same for Basketball or Golf, most people will suck no matter how much time they put in.

I also don't think there is a wide gap between the greats and "OK" shooters. However, I do believe there is a very wide gap between the NBA and the local playground. Most of us will never even come close to stepping on a D-3 College Basketball court, much less an NBA court.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: luvtolean</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Straw argument and you have no clue, you found one thing you do well in and think, everything else is a gear race or just a matter of time, ignoring the statistics that not all reach the level same as any sport. </div></div>

Ask Cartman why he has yellow number plates.
wink.gif
</div></div>

Also ask Cartmann why he is in front of the white plates? oh and Cartmann has pics with white plates too.

mike1_ppir1-vi.jpg


PuebloR604-vi.jpg
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

See you just proved my point, you have no clue what 3 position shooting is.. first listed event is positional...

hang it up,
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just looked up the Shooting results of the 2008 Olympics. It seems the Chinese are pretty good! Considering that guns are not readily available there, and the pool of shooters is very small, how did they do so well? hmmmmmmm

Results here: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/results?discId=37</div></div>

Really, you want to know? They find someone with potential, then pluck them from their family and have them do nothing but train for years, then beat them if they do poorly. Slightly different than the American way.

http://www.pekingduck.org/2005/11/allegations-of-abuse-at-chinese-sports-school/
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See you just proved my point, you have no clue what 3 position shooting is.. first listed event is positional...

hang it up, </div></div>

yeah but one event is prone only. that is the "not cool" event right?

Also, as we both know.. once a moderator gets in a discussion, he no longer becomes "a moderator", and he will eventually fall in favor of one side and ban the other side!
smile.gif
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just looked up the Shooting results of the 2008 Olympics. It seems the Chinese are pretty good! Considering that guns are not readily available there, and the pool of shooters is very small, how did they do so well? hmmmmmmm

Results here: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/results?discId=37</div></div>

Really, you want to know? They find someone with potential, then pluck them from their family and have them do nothing but train for years, then beat them if they do poorly. Slightly different than the American way.

http://www.pekingduck.org/2005/11/allegations-of-abuse-at-chinese-sports-school/ </div></div>

all part of the training. Training is either forced abuse, or self induced abuse. Also what about the Western Europeans? Collectively their population is about the same as the USA, but they seem to do just as well. Were they forced into shooting camps too?
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also, as we both know.. once a moderator gets in a discussion, he no longer becomes "a moderator", and he will eventually fall in favor of one side and ban the other side!
smile.gif
</div></div>

I'd like to see one example of this.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">most people will suck no matter how much time they put in.
</div></div>

Got to call BS on that.

Whilst "natural talent" may be rare, any skill set can and will be improved with time, patience, appropriate levels of fitness, correct technique and good coaching.

Ever wonder why the countries that do well at events like the Olympics tend to be the ones who have invested half their GDP in Sports Academies and training athletes 48 hours a day from the day they are old enough to walk, run or throw.....?

"Practice makes perfect"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also what about the Western Europeans? Collectively their population is about the same as the USA, but they seem to do just as well. Were they forced into shooting camps too? </div></div>

Most professional sportsmen/women follow training/dietary routines that are little short of "training camp" mentality....China, Russia, Germany, Australia, Team GB...I'd imagine even the USA all do it. It's what has to be done to win.

Good kit is only a fraction of the story...it may flatter up to a certain point but then the BS stops and the rewards of time, effort and experience take over.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Okay so we change the subject of who can excel and what it takes to "prone is not cool"

Nothing wrong with prone shooting, but feel free to continue to deflect and show you ignorance.

Blame a Moderator for "swaying the discussion" because you made yourself look foolish by saying just buying high end equipment will put you at the top of the shooting game, despite all the evidence to con tray. Point to the Chinese, point to the position, point to the moderator... well we all know Chinese equipment in inferior so how the hell are they placing against the Germans, American, and other well know Gun / Gear makers ? Heck even the Russians are higher why not single them out.

Facts are facts, and fools launch in to folly.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Okay so we change the subject of who can excel and what it takes to "prone is not cool"

Nothing wrong with prone shooting, but feel free to continue to deflect and show you ignorance.

Blame a Moderator for "swaying the discussion" because you made yourself look foolish by saying just buying high end equipment will put you at the top of the shooting game, despite all the evidence to con tray. Point to the Chinese, point to the position, point to the moderator... well we all know Chinese equipment in inferior so how the hell are they placing against the Germans, American, and other well know Gun / Gear makers ? Heck even the Russians are higher why not single them out.

Facts are facts, and fools launch in to folly. </div></div>

I did not say buying high end equipment will put you at the top. I said the opposite really, go back and read my posts.

Yeah fact is I am a fool and not cool. If we ever disagree, just know that you are the cool one master.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">most people will suck no matter how much time they put in.
</div></div>

Got to call BS on that.

Whilst "natural talent" may be rare, any skill set can and will be improved with time, patience, appropriate levels of fitness, correct technique and good coaching.

Ever wonder why the countries that do well at events like the Olympics tend to be the ones who have invested half their GDP in Sports Academies and training athletes 48 hours a day from the day they are old enough to walk, run or throw.....?

"Practice makes perfect"
</div></div>

"Suck" is all relative.

You may "suck" less than before, but compared to a starting High School Varsity Basketball Player on a D5 School, you will still suck no matter how much coaching you get, or how much time you put into it.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">most people will suck no matter how much time they put in.
</div></div>

Got to call BS on that.

Whilst "natural talent" may be rare, any skill set can and will be improved with time, patience, appropriate levels of fitness, correct technique and good coaching.

Ever wonder why the countries that do well at events like the Olympics tend to be the ones who have invested half their GDP in Sports Academies and training athletes 48 hours a day from the day they are old enough to walk, run or throw.....?

"Practice makes perfect"
</div></div>

PERFECT practice makes perfect
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Suck" is all relative.

You may "suck" less than before </div></div>

I think you just disappeared up your own hole....call when you can see daylight.......
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

You said,

"Shooting the National Level, all it takes is an investment in time."

That is completely false and borne out in the fact, as I said, some people never break the top 20 despite their level of commitment.

Time is the not the guiding factor, maybe at some local club a squirrel will eventually find a nut, but "time" does not make one a winner, which is why only certain names rise to the top level.

You're over simplifying it, comparing apples to oranges and completely missing the point while changing the subject along the way.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">most people will suck no matter how much time they put in.
</div></div>

Got to call BS on that.

Whilst "natural talent" may be rare, any skill set can and will be improved with time, patience, appropriate levels of fitness, correct technique and good coaching.

Ever wonder why the countries that do well at events like the Olympics tend to be the ones who have invested half their GDP in Sports Academies and training athletes 48 hours a day from the day they are old enough to walk, run or throw.....?

"Practice makes perfect"

</div></div>

You need to quote in whole instead of in parts. My exact quote was:
"Suck" is all relative.

You may "suck" less than before, but compared to a starting High School Varsity Basketball Player on a D5 School, you will still suck no matter how much coaching you get, or how much time you put into it.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You said,

"Shooting the National Level, all it takes is an investment in time."

That is completely false and borne out in the fact, as I said, some people never break the top 20 despite their level of commitment.

Time is the not the guiding factor, maybe at some local club a squirrel will eventually find a nut, but "time" does not make one a winner, which is why only certain names rise to the top level.

You're over simplifying it, comparing apples to oranges and completely missing the point while changing the subject along the way.

</div></div>

I said shooting at a National Level, like going to National competitions. I meant competing at this level, never did I say about making it to the finals.

Well I am glad you are here to tell me the points I am missing. Can you help me get back on track? Also what is the point?
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Suck" is all relative.

You may "suck" less than before </div></div>

I think you just disappeared up your own hole....call when you can see daylight....... </div></div>

It's a nice hole. Will you be my friend? And what is your point and did I say something to upset you? Please discuss.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

I keep waiting for this...

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oH5Qc2zTrs"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oH5Qc2zTrs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Delfuego</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I keep waiting for this...

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oH5Qc2zTrs"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oH5Qc2zTrs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object> </div></div>

Will be going home at around 6pm Pacific time. But how will that change my posts on Snipers Hide?
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Got to call BS on that.

Whilst "natural talent" may be rare, any skill set can and will be improved with time, patience, appropriate levels of fitness, correct technique and good coaching.

Ever wonder why the countries that do well at events like the Olympics tend to be the ones who have invested half their GDP in Sports Academies and training athletes 48 hours a day from the day they are old enough to walk, run or throw.....?

"Practice makes perfect"

</div></div>

Show me. Show me that you can be a better Defensive End by practicing hard. I don't believe you can. Don't worry, I can't either no matter how much I practice.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DaveD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Mike,Track racing a motorcycle,how many 1st place trophy do you have and how many championships have you won?

Please grab up "your" rifle
"The Cartmann-M24-AE-Mark-III-mod-34-Bo-Jackson"
Come to this match
Shut up
And shoot
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...856#Post3235856

</div></div>

Taking off for Denver today. Besides, I tried to shoot with you Operators last week and you told me I was not invited
frown.gif
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

I think for any sport or hobby, the better you are, the more you are able to notice the shortcomings of equipment.

There are numerous examples i could use, but a good one everyone knows it cycling. You think the Tour de France guys can tell the difference between a $1000 road bike and a $5000 road bike, or type of tires, or small changes in seat height, Hell yes they can. And they are able to take advantage of those differences when moving to more superior equipment.

Thats why, if you get better at shooting, you'll want better equipment, <span style="font-weight: bold">so you can test your limits, not the equpiment's limits. </span>
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DaveD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not true Mike, You have never been told you cant shoot with me.
And how many times have you place 1st? </div></div>

awesome! Lets meet up sometime.
 
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DaveD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure just hit me up.
How many 1st place? </div></div>

I won 1st place once, 2nd race of my my 2nd season. A week before that I got a 2nd and a third. Crashed out in week 3, and had to hang it up after that. Moved to Boston, and needed to save money for house.

BTW: The first season I only raced 4 times. So not bad for a "Novice" huh?

I always want to get back into racing, problem is a full season will cost me about $15,000+ for just tires, traveling, hotels, parts and upkeep. Right now I don't have the time to dedicate to racing motorcycle. Even shooting, I only go once or twice a month.

How about some 2nd and 3rd place trophies?

Will that be good enough?

trophies2-vi.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Arken SH4 and 6.5 grendel
Replies
3
Views
215
DubfromGA
DubfromGA
Q
Need advice on scope
Replies
10
Views
500
Q_Sertorius
Q
Z
Can’t zero my new scope. Can it be broken or am I missing something ?
Replies
81
Views
2K
Aftermath
Aftermath
ut755ln
LPVO + Dot question
Replies
26
Views
888
Burdy
Burdy
LuckyDuck
Spotters I'm sure this is going to come across as a dumb question but here I am asking it...
Replies
10
Views
747
theLBC
theLBC
Top Bottom
Back