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

[ripcurlksm]

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

Perhaps to Cartman's point, shooting is a sport where you try to eliminate every influence of your body from the instrument you're using, the rifle. Of course its not as cut and dry as that with many other factors that go with placing good shots.

Physical sports like football and basketball, you are the only instrument.

 

[EricCartmann]

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">Relax, I was just curious how much racing you did.
The races you ran,how many racers in your class </div></div>

from my experience, usually the person that says "relax" is the guy that needs to relax the most.

How many first place trophies do you have?

Novice 600 grids are usually 40+ bikes. All great racers, Colin Edwards, Nicky Hayden, Ben Spies, all got their start by winning Novice 600's at the Club Racing level, from here, they move on to bigger and better things

 

[SONIC SAAMI]

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

Last year of racing was in 1999
Sportsman Div. Track Champ here in Vegas
Have a safe trip to Denver (I think thats Franks home town)

 

[EricCartmann]

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">Last year of racing was in 1999
Sportsman Div. Track Champ here in Vegas
Have a safe trip to Denver (I think thats Fraks home town)


</div></div>

Sportsman Division is like the loser class right? How did you do in Novice 600's?

 

[tylerw02]

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"> All great racers, Colin Edwards, Nicky Hayden, Ben Spies, all got their start by winning Novice 600's at the Club Racing level, from here, they move on to bigger and better things

</div></div>

REALLY? They don't just start out being the best of the best?

 

[EricCartmann]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> All great racers, Colin Edwards, Nicky Hayden, Ben Spies, all got their start by winning Novice 600's at the Club Racing level, from here, they move on to bigger and better things

</div></div>

REALLY? They don't just start out being the best of the best? </div></div>

They were born potential champions.. but took practice, studying, working out, and training to BE CHAMPIONS.

Novice 600's is the first major hurdle, if you can't do it here, no need to move on.

 

[remau308]

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

Here's a new thought, how about you guys resolve this pissing match in PM's, or at least take it to barfcom.

 

[EricCartmann]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: remau308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a new thought, how about you guys resolve this pissing match in PM's, or at least take it to barfcom. </div></div>

oh come on, one thing always leads to another, and every thread gets off topic... and when you get frustrated, you can always personally attack Cartmann! Try it, it's fun.

 

[timelinex]

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

Only one way to settle this.. Like "civilized gentlemen"

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r0eC0zfN5hs"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r0eC0zfN5hs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[Muskett]

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

I hate bikes, keep falling of them. Isle of Man TT, now that is for lunatics.

I've shot side by side with a good few shooters that just, however hard they try, just can't get to the next level; a level that they might have a chance to win something. Its not their kit, training time or coordination. One good friend of mine after 18 years never got into the Queen's 50 (Brit Service Rifle Competition thing: 3 day event, 260 competitors, 360 rounds to count all positions), whereas I could get one of my teams youngsters through in their first year. Doesn't mean he was a bad shot, very good in fact, but just couldn't put it together in competition.

The military train a lot of snipers. They are all brought up to a fairly high level of proficiency by excellent training packages. Those that can't make the mark are RTU'ed. Practice and good coaching helps but many military snipers are no more than just good competent shots (and skilled infantrymen). Some are great shots and average snipers. Some excellent snipers and if the truth be known only just good shots. Occasionally you get someone, usually the one you wouldn't expect, who is just exceptional at both.
Put a bunch of snipers into a competition and the results usually show experience wins through but somewhere near the top will be a youngster who is up there too. Its those young eyes that forces the old hats to get back to practicing.

Definitely, there are some people who just have a natural edge. They take little coaching to get right up there with the best. They make it look easy. One I know could pick up any shooting system and within a very short time have it shooting like a pro. He proved it several times and had a heap of silver to prove it including a Queen's Medal for Champion Shot (do a search).

Practice, good equipment and good coaching can get you so far. Often more than adequate to a "sniper" standard. However, there is a next stage up which does take application and a certain level of raw talent.

I need practice to encourage my talent to turn up on the day!

 

[EricCartmann]

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

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

I've shot side by side with a good few shooters that just, however hard they try, just can't get to the next level; a level that they might have a chance to win something. Its not their kit, training time or coordination. One good friend of mine after 18 years never got into the Queen's 50 (Brit Service Rifle Competition thing: 3 day event, 260 competitors, 360 rounds to count all positions), whereas I could get one of my teams youngsters through in their first year. Doesn't mean he was a bad shot, very good in fact, but just couldn't put it together in competition.

</div></div>

The guy who tried for 18 years, How old was he when he started trying?

and the "youngster" who made the field his first year.. tell him Congrats! That's awesome.

 

[EricCartmann]

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: DaveD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Last year of racing was in 1999
Sportsman Div. Track Champ here in Vegas
Have a safe trip to Denver (I think thats Fraks home town)


</div></div>

Sportsman Division is like the loser class right? How did you do in Novice 600's? </div></div>

Dave, the Sportsman Division is equivalent to the "Short Bus" in motorcycle roadracing right? In order to "win" the Championship in this class that means you had to show up to every race and get points for it right? Well Cartmann is proud to say, he has never ever raced one Sportsman Division Race.... then again we are all proud of different things, and proudness is all relative

 

[ScarBliss]

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

Wow this thread has become and absolute mindf@ck, seriously what does gear have to do with inherent OR developed skill? Obviously if you take Michael Jordan in payless flipflips and Michael Jordan in some new cutting edge sneaker, the sneaker Jordan will win. Skill be it developed or inherent, has NO relationship to gear. The equipment is there to enhance your performance. And anyone saying $200 glass is equivalent to $3500 glass is delusional. Try shooting 1900 with a millet and then with an S&B and get back to me. Stop saying "OH I don't want to piss off the fanboys" while getting all passive aggressive or trying to justify your purchase to yourself. I don't make posts saying LOL I HAVE S&B'S AND HENSOLDTS, ALL YOUR STUFF SUCKS WALMART BOY, how bout some of you guys maybe take a que from that and stop doing the reverse and then acting insulted when someone calls you out on it.

Edit: And that Carlos analogy was BEYOND retarded, you think he would shoot better with a bushnell and a stock 700 than he would with a PMII and a TRG/AW/Whatever your flavor is? Some of you guys act like you can win the Daytona 500 with a fiat punto, get real.

 

[EricCartmann]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow this thread has become and absolute mindf@ck, seriously what does gear have to do with inherent OR developed skill? Obviously if you take Michael Jordan in payless flipflips and Michael Jordan in some new cutting edge sneaker, the sneaker Jordan will win. Skill be it developed or inherent, has NO relationship to gear. The equipment is there to enhance your performance. And anyone saying $200 glass is equivalent to $3500 glass is delusional. Try shooting 1900 with a millet and then with an S&B and get back to me. Stop saying "OH I don't want to piss off the fanboys" while getting all passive aggressive or trying to justify your purchase to yourself. I don't make posts saying LOL I HAVE S&B'S AND HENSOLDTS, ALL YOUR STUFF SUCKS WALMART BOY, how bout some of you guys maybe take a que from that and stop doing the reverse and then acting insulted when someone calls you out on it.

Edit: And that Carlos analogy was BEYOND retarded, you think he would shoot better with a bushnell and a stock 700 than he would with a PMII and a TRG/AW/Whatever your flavor is? Some of you guys act like you can win the Daytona 500 with a fiat punto, get real. </div></div>

so now because you added your 2 cents the thread becomes better right?

 

[slonlo_350]

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

Well I have a Weaver Tactical 3-15 and I do like it. I recognize the shortcomings, but as I REALLY wanted to get into some longer range shooting had a limited budget I made some compromises. I don't regret the purchase, and like I said, and it gets the job done well enough, and I have fun behind it. I think that's how most people are. I decided to put together a gun I could have fun with now, with decent enough parts, with the intention of building another rifle later on with all the things I learned from this one. I do agree that if you go TOO cheap you won't have fun, but not everyone can dive into a $2000+ optic when they are starting out in the hobby though there is NOTHING wrong with a high end scope. I just think the more people can get into it the better, and hopefully one day soon those folks with the $4-5-600 glass will be upgrading to feed their new found habit.

 

[ScarBliss]

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: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow this thread has become and absolute mindf@ck, seriously what does gear have to do with inherent OR developed skill? Obviously if you take Michael Jordan in payless flipflips and Michael Jordan in some new cutting edge sneaker, the sneaker Jordan will win. Skill be it developed or inherent, has NO relationship to gear. The equipment is there to enhance your performance. And anyone saying $200 glass is equivalent to $3500 glass is delusional. Try shooting 1900 with a millet and then with an S&B and get back to me. Stop saying "OH I don't want to piss off the fanboys" while getting all passive aggressive or trying to justify your purchase to yourself. I don't make posts saying LOL I HAVE S&B'S AND HENSOLDTS, ALL YOUR STUFF SUCKS WALMART BOY, how bout some of you guys maybe take a que from that and stop doing the reverse and then acting insulted when someone calls you out on it.

Edit: And that Carlos analogy was BEYOND retarded, you think he would shoot better with a bushnell and a stock 700 than he would with a PMII and a TRG/AW/Whatever your flavor is? Some of you guys act like you can win the Daytona 500 with a fiat punto, get real. </div></div>

so now because you added your 2 cents the thread becomes better right? </div></div>

 

[Muskett]

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

Mark was 18 when he started. Now competes world wide at 1000m, open target sights, with his black Powder Sharps! Must be in his late 50's now.

One of my young Riflemen has won the Queen's Medal three times. L\CPL Adam Chapman. Funnily enough his first year he almost didn't get into the team. Do a search.

Mid priced scopes are quite good; that is $600 plus scopes, not $200. Don't forget not every gun needs a top end scope, all depends on the comp. Some scopes are really excessively heavy for the rifle they are on; I say match the scope to the rifle.
Too make a good shot all you need is to be able to have a good sight picture. Lots of scopes will give you that and a long way out. Top, $3000, scopes might give a little advantage, but will never be the winning deal.

 

[EricCartmann]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow this thread has become and absolute mindf@ck, seriously what does gear have to do with inherent OR developed skill? Obviously if you take Michael Jordan in payless flipflips and Michael Jordan in some new cutting edge sneaker, the sneaker Jordan will win. Skill be it developed or inherent, has NO relationship to gear. The equipment is there to enhance your performance. And anyone saying $200 glass is equivalent to $3500 glass is delusional. Try shooting 1900 with a millet and then with an S&B and get back to me. Stop saying "OH I don't want to piss off the fanboys" while getting all passive aggressive or trying to justify your purchase to yourself. I don't make posts saying LOL I HAVE S&B'S AND HENSOLDTS, ALL YOUR STUFF SUCKS WALMART BOY, how bout some of you guys maybe take a que from that and stop doing the reverse and then acting insulted when someone calls you out on it.

Edit: And that Carlos analogy was BEYOND retarded, you think he would shoot better with a bushnell and a stock 700 than he would with a PMII and a TRG/AW/Whatever your flavor is? Some of you guys act like you can win the Daytona 500 with a fiat punto, get real. </div></div>

so now because you added your 2 cents the thread becomes better right? </div></div>

</div></div>


Oh I get it, you made it less of a cluster and made it better. Thanks. We need people like you to put us back in the right direction!

 

[ScarBliss]

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: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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: SCARbliss</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow this thread has become and absolute mindf@ck, seriously what does gear have to do with inherent OR developed skill? Obviously if you take Michael Jordan in payless flipflips and Michael Jordan in some new cutting edge sneaker, the sneaker Jordan will win. Skill be it developed or inherent, has NO relationship to gear. The equipment is there to enhance your performance. And anyone saying $200 glass is equivalent to $3500 glass is delusional. Try shooting 1900 with a millet and then with an S&B and get back to me. Stop saying "OH I don't want to piss off the fanboys" while getting all passive aggressive or trying to justify your purchase to yourself. I don't make posts saying LOL I HAVE S&B'S AND HENSOLDTS, ALL YOUR STUFF SUCKS WALMART BOY, how bout some of you guys maybe take a que from that and stop doing the reverse and then acting insulted when someone calls you out on it.

Edit: And that Carlos analogy was BEYOND retarded, you think he would shoot better with a bushnell and a stock 700 than he would with a PMII and a TRG/AW/Whatever your flavor is? Some of you guys act like you can win the Daytona 500 with a fiat punto, get real. </div></div>

so now because you added your 2 cents the thread becomes better right? </div></div>

</div></div>


Oh I get it, you made it less of a cluster and made it better. Thanks. We need people like you to put us back in the right direction! </div></div>

Enjoy shooting from prone bro, your contributions are peerless.

 

[EricCartmann]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Muskett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mark was 18 when he started. Now competes world wide at 1000m, open target sights, with his black Powder Sharps! Must be in his late 50's now.

One of my young Riflemen has won the Queen's Medal three times. L\CPL Adam Chapman. Funnily enough his first year he almost didn't get into the team. Do a search.

Mid priced scopes are quite good; that is $600 plus scopes, not $200. Don't forget not every gun needs a top end scope, all depends on the comp. Some scopes are really excessively heavy for the rifle they are on; I say match the scope to the rifle.
Too make a good shot all you need is to be able to have a good sight picture. Lots of scopes will give you that and a long way out. Top, $3000, scopes might give a little advantage, but will never be the winning deal. </div></div>


Bingo! Thanks for sharing. I love hearing from real world ex military competitors, especially when I hear how they won with "inferior" gear.

BTW: I bet you guys can't wait to have a King again. Me personally, I would rather win "The Kings Medal" than the "Queens Medal"

 

[EricCartmann]

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

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

Enjoy shooting from prone bro, your contributions are peerless. </div></div>

That to me sounds like you were being derogatory. Thing is I do enjoy shooting prone.

Once again, someone comes in and gives his more-and-mighty-2-cents to steer the ship right. Then he personally insults people along the way! This place is so predictable.

 

[slonlo_350]

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

I was hoping to post:

but looks like he got ya SCAR.

 

[Muskett]

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

slonlo_350, couldn't have put it better myself.

I think Calos would have appreciated some of the modern offerings and they might have made his life easier. However, if you look at his shooting record he wasn't pushing his equipment boundaries all the time. Most of his successes were done well within his equipments capabilities. What made him so good was him, superb shot and hard infantryman. Respect.