To subscribe to the "real-time" version of the list send an email to
[email protected]
In this issue:
Henrich barrel stabilizer
Achilles tendon and the kneeling position
Range colors
Re: Range colors
Re: Range colors
Re: Range colors
Shooting event removal rumors
Re: Shooting event removal rumors
Re: Shooting event removal rumors
Re: Shooting event removal rumors
Re: Shooting event removal rumors
********************************************************************
Hi,
I wanted to hear from users of the Henrich Smallbore stabilizer. My specific question is how sensitive is the stabilizer to barrel position, do you have to move it up/down the barrel to find the "sweet spot" for each ammo/lot?
Thanks, Rich Hume
[email protected]
[Editor - from what I've heard it has a suggested position, but I would think it's just like any other tuner where if you want the absolute max performance, you'd have to try other positions as well to find the "sweet spot". Also, don't tighten it down too much.]
******************************************************************
Whilst I am sure that all 3P shooters would expect some discomfort when kneeling I feel that having to limp for a week after a match or training session is not what it is all about. I am finding that because of the angle of my foot the Achilles tendon is being damaged by the heel cup of the boot. I have tried different boots, but the answer seems to lie in keeping my foot as vertical as possible. I have achieved this by making the boot sole as short as possible and using a fat kneeling roll. This has reduced the weight on the knee to such an extent that it barely touches the ground, but this does not seem too much of a problem, though it does look a bit odd.
I would be interested to hear if any other shooters have had Achilles problems and what they have done to work around it. It is a major factor in holding back my scores because at present I am unable to put in the hours of training necessary.
Many thanks.
Tony Credland
Target Shooting......Sport for All
******************************************************************
Hi folks
We are about to paint our indoor range. Does anyone on the list serve
have information on colors conducive to the shooting sports? I would
expect things such as blaze orange and black are out of the question.
However, when it comes to neutral colors such as duck shell or beige are
there any particular preferences and why?
Cheers Dave Woolridge
MUN Sea~Hawks Shooting Team
[Editor - it somewhat depends upon your lighting. In most cases I would say white or off white since most ranges do not have enough light. However, if you've got an overabundance of light, you may go for a light grey perhaps. It also depends on how you want your range to feel. FL lights are cooler so you may want a warmer color on your walls. Likewise, if all you have are normal lights, you may want a sterile white to balance it out.]
******************************************************************
In reference to the paint, I suggest light green paint. Good reflective of
light and the green is relaxing to the psych which is better for the
shooting athlete. A white is to harsh and reflects to much glare during the
shooting competitions. Gray absorbs to much light and therefore would cause
additional light in the range area.
The paint should be flat and light green absorbing...non-glossy.
Chet Skinner, Coach
Entity Sports International
http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/dome/4512/index.html
******************************************************************
I'd suggest using the same background paint as at Wolf Creek or at OTC, a
soft, light tan or buff color, not unlike the tan paper of the standard paper
target. You're gonna shoot your big matches at one of those venues... So
shouldn't your training range conditions be as close to the anticipated
competition conditions as possible?
[Editor - The side walls of Tom Lowe Shooting Grounds (Wolf Creek) are much lighter than normal target paper. A creamy off white. The rear walls have a very light green/aqua tint to them, just as Chet suggests. The Sius targets are mounted on about a 2 foot wide strip a lightly stained wood.]
******************************************************************
Range Lighting / Colours
Can't quite remember if this topic has come up before
but here goes......
Range Lighting has been an interest of mine for the
last 10 to 15 years or so. After putting up for years
of visiting some ranges with candle power for range
lighting and being submitted to skin burning (I
exaggerate) in others I decided that Something Had To
Be Done!
The ISSF book specifies a paint job of "neutral
colour" - whatever that means, but I suspect anything
in the pastel shades. A lighting level for 10m Air
Ranges of greater than 300Lux over the range and around
the shooter, and greater than 1000 Lux on the target.
The rules show how this is measured. I was dismayed to
note that in the last rule change that the "at least
1000 Lux" had been changed from "800 -1000 Lux". See
later.
The reason for such "high" light levels is to ensure
that practically all people can distinguish "true
colour". By that I mean that the cones in the retina of
the eye are "turned on". We are very good as seeing in
the dark. The problem is that we can't see colours in
the dark. The best detail the eye can see is when it is
using the cones of the eye. These are massed in the
Fovea, the central "All Seeing" part of the eye. So to
ensure we can see the best detail and the true colour,
we need to be bathed in light that is a least 300 lux.
This is a generally accepted lower limit for
gymnasiums, sports complexes etc.
To put these indoor light levels in perspective. Sunlit
daytime is around 100,000 lux. We are trying to see in
less than 1% of daylight. Not bad when you think about
it.
There was a reason that the old ISSF rules stipulated
800 - 1000 lux and 300 lux everywhere else. The eye
finds it very difficult to accommodate high contrast
scenes. For example, it is difficult to see into shaded
areas in bright sunlight. To compensate for this we put
our hand up to shade the bright light and bingo, we can
see a lot easier into the shade. Baseball caps have a
use afterall!!! The eye can accommodate a contrast
ratio of about 3 to 1 quite easily. 1 to 1 is best of
course. Thus the reason the ISSF ratio was 900 to 300
lux - or 3 to 1. With the change, there is now a danger
than the contrast ratio may get greater than 3 to 1.
The effect of looking down a range with ratios greater
than 3 to 1 means that you seem to be looking from a
dark tunnel into a bright light. By dropping the ratio
in the range the scene appears more evenly lighted. My
recommendation is that if the target lighting is
raised higher than 1000 Lux then raise the range
lighting to at least a third of it! So if the target
goes to 1500 lux get the rest of the range up to
500lux!
If there is anyone with contacts to the ISSF Technical
Committee please feel free to pass this comment on!
To colours. A few years ago some ranges tried colouring
the target background green. People thought it was a
great idea. What was obvious was that it immediately
made the range more evenly lighted. That is, because
the large expanse of white around the target had gone,
the perceived contrast was lowered. As more and more
ranges put more lighting down the rest of the range and
around the mound, the "necessity" for painting the
target area green has receded. What became obvious was
that as the "rest of the range" lighting went up, the
scores went up.
I would suggest that pastel shades are the preferred
option for range colour. By all means match the target
backgrounds to the target paper but feel free to put in
some colour on the rest of the range. I find grey
(gray?) a little too prison like. White and off white
may be a little bright if the "correct" lighting levels
are available. Just be careful about the perceived
contrast.
If you want to test if your range light levels are
adequate, grab a paint colour brochure and check that
you can make out the colours throughout the range. Note
that fluros and incandescent lighting will render the
colours in the brochure differently!!! But if the
levels are high enough then you will have no trouble
discerning them. If you find difficulty, then seriously
consider raising the light levels in the range.
Regards
Ross Mason
******************************************************************
Hi Michael,
I was just looking through some of the back issues of the list and re-read some of the discussions regarding the rumored removal of 25m and 50m shooting events from future Olympics beginning in 2008 or 2012. I was just wondering if anyone knows the procedures by which a shooting event gets removed from the Olympics. Is the decision made solely by the IOC, or does the ISSF get some input on the events? Incidentally, the IOC technical evaluation commission were here in Toronto last week for the purpose of evaluating the city's potential for hosting the 2008 games. The plans still include 25 m and 50 m ranges, with the overall layout pretty similar to the Wolf Creek facility.
Regards,
Steve Desrocher
[Editor - beats me how they would decide that, but I'm sure the ISSF would have a say. I'd venture a guess it would be largely dependent upon participation or lack thereof. The new one in Athens sounds like it will be pretty cool so they should look at it as well. I guess there were complaints about the shotgun ranges in Sydney because of the brown foilage but I don't suppose there was much they could do about that.]
******************************************************************
I too have heard the rumors, but I don't put too much stock in them. I'd
guess the new RF Air and Std Air pistol events are for those countries that
don't get to play with real guns more than anything else. Lot's of shooting
sports are sliding down the caliber hill, as in 300m to 50m rifle, and
biathlon from centerfire to rimfire at 50m, but there are still plenty of
events in their full caliber/full range variants. The downsizing of the last
quarter century is more an economy move for local Oly organizers, not having
to find room for a 300m range in a expensive urban real estate market.
As far as the clay target background colors in Sydney, yeah, they were drab,
(and looked pretty drab on TV) but that's what you get when you have the
Summer Olys in the early spring local zulu. Cue the buds and leaves...
[email protected]
******************************************************************
>>The downsizing of the last quarter century is more an economy move for local Oly organizers, not having to find >room for a 300m range in a expensive urban real estate market.
I don't buy this excuse; other Olympic venues cost 10's of millions of dollars and all countries that can afford to host the Olympics have a military with centerfire rifle ranges that could be modified to be used for Olympic 300m events.
[email protected]
******************************************************************
It's not an excuse.
It's a hard, economic reality.
Huge 300m ranges take a big chunk of urban land and cost big money. Yes,
local Oly organizers do build multi-hundred million dollar stadiums for
baseball, soccer and such. They also seat many tens of thousands of people,
at a pretty good chunk of change per head, and can be used daily or weekly
for many years for other sports and events to pay off the construction and
operating costs.
Shooting venues don't have those economic benefits. Sydney's range cost some
20 million USD to construct. It seats maybe 1500 in the finals hall, at maybe
$25.00 to 50.00 USD a head per event, and perhaps 5000 in portable
grandstands outside for clay target, at even less per head. Lots of those
seats were empty, or occupied by non-ticket payers like athletes and coaches,
even at the Olys.
Let's face it, shooting, by its very nature, is not the most dramatic sport
for the average spectator. Most all of the spectator seating comes out after
the Olys, leaving you with a major facility and no way to seat spectators,
thus no ticket revenue to help pay back construction and operating costs.
What do you think the hourly range user fees might be on that to pay back the
huge construction loans? $100.00, or 500.00 or a thousand an hour?
Yes, Sydney will probably host an annual ISSF World Cup, the Oceania Games,
their national and regional championships and a bunch of local development
programs, but it won't be taking in TV revenue or spectator gate revenues of
hundreds of thousands of dollars, week in and week out for the next several
decades. Expecting the athletes alone to pay back the cost of construction
and operations is also difficult, as it puts shooting beyond the reach of
many individuals and even many nations.
Yes, an existing 300m military range might be pressed into service. That
range is probably scores or hundreds of miles away from the rest of the
Olympic events. Might as well have Olympic shooting on the dark side of the
moon for all the media exposure and ticket sales an outlying venue like that
would generate.
I'm not trying to rain on your parade or demean your position. I too would
like to see 300m return to the Olys and to other similar events. However, we
as shooters also need to remember that economic reality drives the shooting
sports just like every other business activity. Based on paltry television ad
revenues and venue ticket sales, we should be glad that the Oly organizers
and local governments subsidize our sport the way they do. If we had to make
an economic go of it all by ourselves, we'd probably be shooting from under
an Army surplus tent at the town dump.
[email protected]
********************************************************************
> >Huge 300m ranges take a big chunk of urban land and cost big money. Yes,
> >local Oly organizers do build multi-hundred million dollar stadiums for
>baseball, soccer and such. They also seat many tens of thousands of people,
>at a pretty good chunk of change per head, and can be used daily or weekly
>for many years for other sports and events to pay off the construction and
>operating costs.
You mean like the Montreal stadium that cost almost a billion dollars and
had the perpetual leaking roof and failing structural members?
> >Shooting venues don't have those economic benefits.
Like the crowds in weekly gymnastic, and wrestling, weight lifting,
swimming, track and field competitions throughout the year :-)
> >Let's face it, shooting, by its very nature, is not the most dramatic
>sport for the average spectator.
I don't know about the Sydney games but I've been told that the Atlanta
shooting games were sold out.
> >Yes, an existing 300m military range might be pressed into service. That
>tange is probably scores or hundreds of miles away from the rest of the
>Olympic events.
That wouldn't be the first time, that some games were far away from other
venues.
>Might as well have Olympic shooting on the dark side of the moon for all
>the media exposure and ticket sales an outlying venue like that would
>generate.
The shooting games could be downtown and the media wouldn't cover it.
[email protected]
********************************************************************
End of UIT Mailing List #14
Michael Ray - DBA & Systems Engineer
Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech. Rifle Coach
UIT Shooting Page -
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/1190/index.htm
