(Not intending to ruffle any feathers with this, would just like to see a healthy discussion and see how others feel).
I've been analyzing and mulling this over since I got into competitive airgun shooting.
Yes I only shoot in "local" matches, but I'm fortunate to live within a few hours drive of 3 different field target clubs that put on matches throughout the year, and I've have been shooting at the Extreme Field Target events that have been occurring monthly since last fall.
My journey in the equipment race.....
I think it was 2015 or 2016 that I went to my first match, a traditional sub 20fpe ft match Arzrover was putting on at his house. I showed up with an HW77k and a Vortex Crossfire. I didn't do well, in the low teens out of 40 if I remember right. I think I was the only springer shooter. Even before I left the match I was thinking I needed to upgrade, gun and scope. Within 6 months I had a Brocock PCP and did pretty good with it in Hunter class for a while.. I still wanted "better" equipment. So I ordered a USFT from TimmyMac out in Cali. Sometime through all that I ended up with a couple SWFA 20x scopes. And that's what went on the USFT, shooting in Open class. For the first 5 or 6 months I didn't win a match, was near the top a couple times, but didn't have any great showings. Around then a friend built a 3d-printed sidewheel contraption for ranging by focus and I started to win a few matches. I'd been looking at and researching field target scopes since the beginning and finally bought a Falcon X50. Almost instantly I started winning matches.
Last fall I went to the first of the monthly Extreme FT matches. I had a Veteran Long in .22 shooting the 18.1s, and I finished second to last. Knew I needed a better BC pellet and that barrel didn't like them, so had a barrel machined. The next month I did much better and have since been near the top a couple times and even had the high score one match (Bobby and Sandy weren't there that month so that gave me a chance to win). I'd still like to put a little better glass on my long range/high power rig, but not in a huge hurry to do so.
And that's kinda the abbreviated version of the progression that I've had towards more expensive "better" equipment. Where I've placed in the standings in each of these types of field target competitions has had a linear relationship with the quality of the equipment that I'm using. I do try to do most of my non-competitive shooting from the same positions I use to compete in, so I suppose that's "practice." But I was doing that all along, with the budget-friendly and the pricey gear.
In fact, I had an interesting experience this past weekend with the USFT/Falcon scope rig. Prior to last Friday I had not touched that gun since the September AZ State FT match, something like 8 months. So absolutely ZERO practice. I shot my Vet .20 during the actual match because it's short LOP fits my 7 year old son better, so we shared that gun just to not need to manage two rigs through the whole course. BUT, I shot through again right afterwards, using the USFT, and shot a 47/52, on a very difficult course. That tied the high score that had been shot during the match. And those 5 misses were the Indian, not the arrow (pulled shots, misreads on the wind).
Drumsnguns just shared a nearly perfect N50 (Mike Nisch of Thomas Airgun's new high power 50 yard benchrest competition) with a gun that he has not shot such much since 2016. I messaged him and got some details and permission to mention him in this post. From what he told me, most of his shooting in the past few years sounds like it was from his Impact. He mentioned the Cricket trigger being much more appropriate for benchrest than the Impact. Anyway, minimal time with the Cricket, and he pulls it out of storage and shoots a nearly perfect 250.
So, the USFT this past weekend and Drumsnguns Cricket shot better than average (read GOOD) scores, with minimal practice time.
Are we simply dealing with a "right tool for the job" situation here? We congratulate each other when we shoot a good score, but is it really our performance, or the gun's performance that deserves the accolades? The flip side of the concept of the gun just being exceptional is that it can't sit there and shoot itself, so some credit needs to go to the shooter. There's also the idea of how hard is really to line up the crosshairs and squeeze the trigger, at least in the case of a PCP. If the gun is tuned right and capable of accuracy, it's kinda just a given that the pellet should go where it should. What about skill in reading the wind? There's also the underlying theme of "buying your way to the top." Although we all have friends who have really good equipment but still isn't the top shooter. Are the results commensurate to the confidence level one has in his/her equipment?
All that circles us back to the title: shooter? or equipment? I don't have the answer, but I'd like to hear other's opinions on the matter.
I've been analyzing and mulling this over since I got into competitive airgun shooting.
Yes I only shoot in "local" matches, but I'm fortunate to live within a few hours drive of 3 different field target clubs that put on matches throughout the year, and I've have been shooting at the Extreme Field Target events that have been occurring monthly since last fall.
My journey in the equipment race.....
I think it was 2015 or 2016 that I went to my first match, a traditional sub 20fpe ft match Arzrover was putting on at his house. I showed up with an HW77k and a Vortex Crossfire. I didn't do well, in the low teens out of 40 if I remember right. I think I was the only springer shooter. Even before I left the match I was thinking I needed to upgrade, gun and scope. Within 6 months I had a Brocock PCP and did pretty good with it in Hunter class for a while.. I still wanted "better" equipment. So I ordered a USFT from TimmyMac out in Cali. Sometime through all that I ended up with a couple SWFA 20x scopes. And that's what went on the USFT, shooting in Open class. For the first 5 or 6 months I didn't win a match, was near the top a couple times, but didn't have any great showings. Around then a friend built a 3d-printed sidewheel contraption for ranging by focus and I started to win a few matches. I'd been looking at and researching field target scopes since the beginning and finally bought a Falcon X50. Almost instantly I started winning matches.
Last fall I went to the first of the monthly Extreme FT matches. I had a Veteran Long in .22 shooting the 18.1s, and I finished second to last. Knew I needed a better BC pellet and that barrel didn't like them, so had a barrel machined. The next month I did much better and have since been near the top a couple times and even had the high score one match (Bobby and Sandy weren't there that month so that gave me a chance to win). I'd still like to put a little better glass on my long range/high power rig, but not in a huge hurry to do so.
And that's kinda the abbreviated version of the progression that I've had towards more expensive "better" equipment. Where I've placed in the standings in each of these types of field target competitions has had a linear relationship with the quality of the equipment that I'm using. I do try to do most of my non-competitive shooting from the same positions I use to compete in, so I suppose that's "practice." But I was doing that all along, with the budget-friendly and the pricey gear.
In fact, I had an interesting experience this past weekend with the USFT/Falcon scope rig. Prior to last Friday I had not touched that gun since the September AZ State FT match, something like 8 months. So absolutely ZERO practice. I shot my Vet .20 during the actual match because it's short LOP fits my 7 year old son better, so we shared that gun just to not need to manage two rigs through the whole course. BUT, I shot through again right afterwards, using the USFT, and shot a 47/52, on a very difficult course. That tied the high score that had been shot during the match. And those 5 misses were the Indian, not the arrow (pulled shots, misreads on the wind).
Drumsnguns just shared a nearly perfect N50 (Mike Nisch of Thomas Airgun's new high power 50 yard benchrest competition) with a gun that he has not shot such much since 2016. I messaged him and got some details and permission to mention him in this post. From what he told me, most of his shooting in the past few years sounds like it was from his Impact. He mentioned the Cricket trigger being much more appropriate for benchrest than the Impact. Anyway, minimal time with the Cricket, and he pulls it out of storage and shoots a nearly perfect 250.
So, the USFT this past weekend and Drumsnguns Cricket shot better than average (read GOOD) scores, with minimal practice time.
Are we simply dealing with a "right tool for the job" situation here? We congratulate each other when we shoot a good score, but is it really our performance, or the gun's performance that deserves the accolades? The flip side of the concept of the gun just being exceptional is that it can't sit there and shoot itself, so some credit needs to go to the shooter. There's also the idea of how hard is really to line up the crosshairs and squeeze the trigger, at least in the case of a PCP. If the gun is tuned right and capable of accuracy, it's kinda just a given that the pellet should go where it should. What about skill in reading the wind? There's also the underlying theme of "buying your way to the top." Although we all have friends who have really good equipment but still isn't the top shooter. Are the results commensurate to the confidence level one has in his/her equipment?
All that circles us back to the title: shooter? or equipment? I don't have the answer, but I'd like to hear other's opinions on the matter.
