NRA has lost sight of Precision Pistol

Grayfox said:

I think a lot of the decline of precision shooting has to do with the general change in attitude towards shooting in itself. Once considered a very demanding and disciplined sport, shooting is now looked upon as a survival skill.
I think its safe to say that the vast majority of gun owners today have guns for the purpose of self defense. Shooting sports take a very distant second or maybe third place.
Not to mention that for many, life is very busy these days.
So why should they spend the time, money and work so hard to hit that tiny X when all they really need is to be able to keep shots in the A zone?

Click to expand...

Because precision pistol shooting is a great foundation for learning the fundamentals of marksmanship that can be applied to any handgun shooting situation? Actually the attraction to the sport, for the people who are inclined, is the challenge of it. It isn't for the masses. It takes a certain type of individual who finds gratification in learning to succeed in such a demanding sport and who is willing to put in the effort and expense.

Wow, quite a bizarre turn on the tone of dialogue.

Another online issue of Shooting Sports USA hit the web the other day. Not one, but three articles on action pistol. A pull quote as follows "I Like Shooting As Fast As The Dot Allows You".
So, there you are. I get where the NRA is coming from.
Maybe it's best if they hand over the "precision pistol" reigns to the CMP. They're doing a great job of promoting real marksmanship and accessibility amongst ALL SHOOTERS YOUNG and OLD.

Funny thing, if this discussion has any bearing on the perception of firearms on contemporary society, then the need to portray competitive shooting as a disciplined, precision sport (rather than a fantasy simulation of combat) should be more important than ever.

To Wise A, you don't even know me. I can assure you I am not an "old fogie". Before making personal presumptions, maybe you'd care to tell us what the "A" in your moniker stands for before someone jumps to conclusions.

I recently had a person from a gunsmoke challenged overseas location ask me to teach them how to shoot in the short time they were stateside. While reviewing all the aspects of shooting (safety, mechanics, fundamentals) I mentioned the different emphasis on shooting styles and competitions but pointed out the traditional learning method was to get good at Precision Pistol and then move on to other types of shooting.

What surprised me was how well the new shooter was able to work into getting all shots (usually at a Timed Fire pace) with a 22 into the 9 ring on a NRA B-8 repair center at 25 yards and then a 45. (2 handed shooting using the USMC Pistol Team Workbook). Yes there were times where a dry firing break was needed to fix problems but I was impressed at the determination and progress made.

Once the fundamentals were nailed down to a good degree rapid fire and multiple targets were tried at closer distances with several different types of firearms but the shooter decided they really like the challenge of 25 yards.

Another reason I picked 25 yards was what good is teaching shorter distances if the shooter moved to the EU and the range they go to is 25 meters only?

6string said:

Wow, quite a bizarre turn on the tone of dialogue.

Another online issue of Shooting Sports USA hit the web the other day. Not one, but three articles on action pistol. A pull quote as follows "I Like Shooting As Fast As The Dot Allows You".
So, there you are. I get where the NRA is coming from.
Maybe it's best if they hand over the "precision pistol" reigns to the CMP. They're doing a great job of promoting real marksmanship and accessibility amongst ALL SHOOTERS YOUNG and OLD.

Funny thing, if this discussion has any bearing on the perception of firearms on contemporary society, then the need to portray competitive shooting as a disciplined, precision sport (rather than a fantasy simulation of combat) should be more important than ever.

To Wise A, you don't even know me. I can assure you I am not an "old fogie". Before making personal presumptions, maybe you'd care to tell us what the "A" in your moniker stands for before someone jumps to conclusions.

Click to expand...

It's not coincidental that you can't buy a handgun in Canada with a barrel less than 105mm long (4.13 inches), "excluding barrels of pistols used in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union."

ISSF isn't doing practical pistol competition. If that were the case, this exclusion wouldn't be in there.

There is clearly a legitimacy for traditional target shooting in the minds of the anti-gun crowd that doesn't extend to practical pistol competition. We need to recognize that, and recognize the value of that perception as a legitimate sporting purpose for handguns in preserving 2A rights in the US.

Grayfox said:

I think a lot of the decline of precision shooting has to do with the general change in attitude towards shooting in itself. Once considered a very demanding and disciplined sport, shooting is now looked upon as a survival skill.

Click to expand...

Hey look, somebody said something smart. I'm not even being sarcastic, it's one of the few insightful comments in this terribad thread.

BB57 said:

There is clearly a legitimacy for traditional target shooting in the minds of the anti-gun crowd that doesn't extend to practical pistol competition. We need to recognize that, and recognize the value of that perception as a legitimate sporting purpose for handguns in preserving 2A rights in the US.

Click to expand...

No. There's legitimacy in the "middle ground" who don't know anything about firearms, and haven't made up their mind either way. But they wouldn't accept the "legitimacy" of an NRA High Power that's semiautomatic and could accept a 30-round magazine. Or how impossible it would be to make an AR that couldn't.

The other part is perception of who owns what in the minds of the uninformed and neutral: Hunters are normal people, right? Okay, so let's not take away those bolt-action rifles and shotguns that the normal hunters that live next door to you own.

But those whack-jobs with the AR-15s and 15-shot pistols? They're crazy, you don't know anyone like that, you'd be able to tell. And you wouldn't want them living next door to you anyway.

You're skipping ahead to Step Two by presuming people don't already think you're crazy for shooting IPSC or 3-Gun. And even that might be skipping a step, because so many gun folks actually think regular people even give a damn about getting it right.

Rowlf said:

What surprised me was how well the new shooter was able to work into getting all shots (usually at a Timed Fire pace) with a 22 into the 9 ring on a NRA B-8 repair center at 25 yards and then a 45.

Click to expand...

Because it's really not that hard. One-handed is an order of magnitude more difficult--that second hand can band-aid a lot of errors, and a steadier hold is always handy--but contrary to what elitists would have you believe, BE isn't really any more difficult than anything else.

6string said:

To Wise A, you don't even know me. I can assure you I am not an "old fogie". Before making personal presumptions, maybe you'd care to tell us what the "A" in your moniker stands for before someone jumps to conclusions.

Click to expand...

Oh, aren't you clever. Or maybe it means exactly what you think it means, and your ham-handed attempt at an insult is just so much egg on your face.

"Acre", obviously.

Also, where did I call you old, gramps?

Interesting thread, for many years I shot bullseye and really enjoyed it, I have never shot one of the "action" disciplines and with failing knees and getting older probably never will, however I have noticed at my local range something that was mentioned earlier, a large number of shooters at the local range tend to arrive after myself and my buddies blast a box or two of ammo and then leave, hey whatever rings their bell, but and its a big but a lot of the targets do not reflect the amount of ammo that was fired. Our target frame s are wood for this very reason and a frame 22 inches by 36 inches suffers a lot of injury at the relatively short distance of 20 feet, my point is what is the use of blowing off 100-200 rounds of ammo in a short time if 40% miss the target, if the action shooting is meant to enhance self defence I dont think for some people it's working, unless they get lucky on the first shot or two I would happily stand my ground and take a second longer to get off that one shot is going right where I want it to, my point is what is the use of rapid fire if you dont hit what you need to, no matter if you are facing a bad guy or an enraged wild animal if you dont hit the target in the appropiate place you most likely wont get to try again. I'm all for fast shooting but it has to be accurate otherwise what is the point..
Just an opinion nothing written in stone and yes I shoot using two hands but doesn't seem to improve my scores that much the bad knees do not make for a very stable platform now LOL.

I'm starting to wonder, is the NRA leaving me or am I about to leave. Sorry to hear the young studs view men like me as "old fogies" I guess that's
where the NRA is going...push aside the lifelong members and, veterans to embrace the new yahoo shooting. Time pushes along.

Hello, guys the NRA is the best organization we have and they do a lot of good things for shooters and gun owners.
That being said the NRA is all about money--- period. If your a lifetime member from when I joined it was 100-150 bucks or something like that.
Ive made a few other donations and have shot competitions , (paying entry fees) for 35 or more years. But truly at competitions now most of the people working the National Championship type matches are being paid. I know in the 70/80s line people at the NPRC/NPSC were volunteers, sent by some depts. to learn and help out. At Albuquerque all paid that soaked up a lot of money. Plus in 70/80 900+ shooters shooting the Nationals, now maybe 300, so the money aspect is upside down.
Most of their money comes from the gun industry, so you have to go where the money is. 3 Gun involves more guns, more types of ammo and equipment than your basic bullseye or ppc match. More sponsors means more money. I don't blame the NRA , although I know there is a lot of wasted money especially with the higher ups , they travel like senators, BUT they do have to rub shoulders with the political elites or we wouldn't have any guns for anything.( still 1 million a day for an attorney is a bit much).
Its very hard to get ANY shooter to stay with any shooting sport these days not just young guys. Gun laws, availability of ranges or places to practice, are the biggest drawback ,I think. Then add time, cost,and the general distain for shooting sports in general now, its a lot tougher to make a commitment to competitive shooting.
When I started and for years, you got some recognition for being a good shot. Today (at least in police circles) you would get more departmental recognition if you sold your guns and donated the money to feed some homeless. THAT might get you promoted.
So promote and befriend anyone that shoots any sport and stick together or we will all be bass fishing.

We can't blame the NRA for the fall in participation of Bullseye. As mentioned the younger generations do not take part in Bullseye and High Power Rifle. The basics are the same for both sports, but patients, quietness, and steadiness seem to be lacking in today's youth.

At the local ranges; an indoor, an outdoor public, and a 'public' range [non-military or non-retired has to jump through hoops for access] at the local army base; a common characteristic is obvious. The typical gun owner today can't hit the target, shoots ONE box of ammo, goes home proudly carrying a target that does not have any discernable groups, and the only holes touching are when the target is folded in half --maybe. The total number of holes in the target is 70% of the number of bullets fired.

Rare is the shooter who asks, "How did you shoot that small group?" Also rare is the shooter who will listen to advice about raising their skill level when given in the politest way possible. For most shooters it is all about recoil and noise. Hitting the target is a distant goal. Sight alignment, 6-o'clock hold, or center of mass are 3 of life's great mysteries.

Symptomatic of a cultural divide?

Yep!

Steve K said:

We can't blame the NRA for the fall in participation of Bullseye. As mentioned the younger generations do not take part in Bullseye and High Power Rifle. The basics are the same for both sports, but patients, quietness, and steadiness seem to be lacking in today's youth.

Click to expand...

(All those medications for their emotional problems really add up!)
And, this from Engineer1911:
"At the local ranges; an indoor, an outdoor public, and a 'public' range [non-military or non-retired has to jump through hoops for access] at the local army base; a common characteristic is obvious. The typical gun owner today can't hit the target, shoots ONE box of ammo, goes home proudly carrying a target that does not have any discernable groups, and the only holes touching are when the target is folded in half --maybe. The total number of holes in the target is 70% of the number of bullets fired.

Rare is the shooter who asks, "How did you shoot that small group?" Also rare is the shooter who will listen to advice about raising their skill level when given in the politest way possible. For most shooters it is all about recoil and noise. Hitting the target is a distant goal. Sight alignment, 6-o'clock hold, or center of mass are 3 of life's great mysteries."
(Sounds like my range!)

Maybe it just comes down to a cultural divide?

Unfortunately, inattentive attitudes towards marksmanship are too often accompanied by inattentive attitudes towards range safety.
But, perhaps that's a digression into another topic?

I try not to judge why people of any generation want to do what they do. Change is constant, I can get over it, or gripe my way to the grave; which I really don't want to do.

The NRA is going where the people are, that's democracy.

You cannot miss fast enough to win.

Perhaps the best way to measure the NRA's commitment to Precision Pistol is to compare what they have done to strengthen the program compared to what they committed to in their 2013 resolution committing to supporting competition programs.

The problem may be a lack of imagination. The NRA seems to have done nothing to integrate the interests of action pistol with precision pistol nor supported international pistol development programs. There seems to be little outreach or support to develop competitive programs in the Pacific Northwest. A few keep the flame alive but it is flickering for lack of NRA support.

IMHO, accurate shooting in Any Style is based on a Good Foundation. Meaning ,Safely handling of whatever firearm, Correct marksmanship resulting from Training and Practice: Developing a Stance, Learning a correct grip on pistol/ revolver, Developing correct breathing, Sight Alignment And Trigger Control. Once these have been obtained one Naturally uses them( or tries) when shooting in any form, National Match Course( several) or as in the military “ Leg Matches”.
The NRA used to have basic Marksmanship booklets that we gave to those we were instructing( in the 70’s), those booklets contained fundamentals of Basic Marksmanship. Have no clue what is taught these days as I only go to range to shoot and see a class or 2( most CCW).
Guess it’s the instant gratification wanted these days of just blasting away at whatever target. As for LEO’s., just read Any article regarding a shooting where 100’s or rounds are expended , where did all those rounds end up?
Again one needs a good foundation of training in Any Sport.

Neversink n Klapperthal said:

the taste in firearms has changed to mirror a change in the world. Today`s world is more violent than years ago. Robberies,terrorism,etc have climbed.People have an awareness to protect themselves. This has given rise to the trend in auto pistols and semi auto rifles. revolvers,match shooting,where once very popular,has taken a back seat to Glocks and AR15`s.The firearms field has always been changing

Click to expand...

The only problem with that is that violent crime has actually been falling in the United States for quite some time.

From the FBI Statistics page:

"There were an estimated 366.7 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2019, a rate that dropped 1.0 percent when compared with the 2018 estimated violent crime rate and fell 9.3 percent from the 2010 estimate."

FBI — Violent Crime

But you are not alone in thinking it's getting worse. The media's infatuation with violent crime over-emphasises it and what I've come to call 'The Gunfighter Industrial Complex" exploits it.

Forty years ago when I started shooting you never even saw a human silhouette target on the range. It was mostly a bunch of guys interested in precision (if not formal bullseye) and the pistol range was 25 yards. Nowadays everybody is practicing killing people.

If you go look at the statistics, any ones you want massaged any way you want, you can only come to the conclusion that there's a 99%+ chance they'll never need the gun they're carrying. I'd venture a guess that negligent discharges are more likely. But they don't keep stats on that anywhere I can find.

Of course, that's in the aggregate and one's risk profile may be greater. But most of the people I know that always carry are probably well below the average risk.

Don't take this to mean that I'm opposed to concealed carry.

Gun Golf in all of its forms get boring since it becomes about who has the best lead slinger and that costs money. I much prefer outlaw matches between friends. One day it could be .22LR at 100 yards with washers taped to the target. The next it could be defensive scenarios with a BUG from cover.

In the end, we have fun.

glenwolde said:

The only problem with that is that violent crime has actually been falling in the United States for quite some time.

From the FBI Statistics page:

"There were an estimated 366.7 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2019, a rate that dropped 1.0 percent when compared with the 2018 estimated violent crime rate and fell 9.3 percent from the 2010 estimate."

FBI — Violent Crime

But you are not alone in thinking it's getting worse. The media's infatuation with violent crime over-emphasises it and what I've come to call 'The Gunfighter Industrial Complex" exploits it.

Forty years ago when I started shooting you never even saw a human silhouette target on the range. It was mostly a bunch of guys interested in precision (if not formal bullseye) and the pistol range was 25 yards. Nowadays everybody is practicing killing people.

If you go look at the statistics, any ones you want massaged any way you want, you can only come to the conclusion that there's a 99%+ chance they'll never need the gun they're carrying. I'd venture a guess that negligent discharges are more likely. But they don't keep stats on that anywhere I can find.

Of course, that's in the aggregate and one's risk profile may be greater. But most of the people I know that always carry are probably well below the average risk.

Don't take this to mean that I'm opposed to concealed carry.

Click to expand...

I doubt that the figures for 2019- 2024 will still show a decline. Murders in big cities are really climbing. But back to the topic. Precision pistol shooting has many more competing shooting sports than in the 50's and 60's. The NRA still hosts the "Nationals", but with interest in the sport waning, I wonder just how long they can justify it to the millions of NRA members who aren't interested. With the ammo and reloading crunch and sky high prices, the sport will lose more participants. I personally think that bullseye shooting is a worthwhile endeavor for anyone. I still think it is a good basis for learning basic marksmanship and safety. Having said that, the current trend is for close-up, self-defense training. That is where the interest lies.

I'm an old local area only bullseye shooter. We are lucky enough to have a 20 point rifle range in the basement of our old High School, that is still usable, I predate IPSC and IDPA. Every winter we had an adult club use the range, and had a 10 week league, a standard 30 round Gallery round bullseye match. We normally had enough shooters we had to have at least two lines for each stage. We shot on the 50 ft. target as that was our limited distance. This club has existed since the 1930's, the membership went up and down, but when we started the league in the late 70's, the membership grew. As time went by, and the big outdoor club was started, IPSC established, along with Metallic Silhouette, and High Power Rifle. Naturally IPSC grew, and later IDPA was added. We tried to establish outdoor Bullseye, but people complained it took too long, took all day to shoot a match. Eventually the Bullseye folded when only 3-4 would show up. But, when winter came, all the shooters returned to the indoor range to shoot that Gallery round and enjoyed it. Most expressed that in the spring time their IPSC scores had improved because they shot more accurately, (but they still wanted to go into hose mode).
I hope some form of Bullseye will continue to be available as it is a great learning tool.

Many good points have been made here.

I'm not a competitive shooter, but tried the combat stuff some years ago. Regarding handgun shooting - more than twenty years ago, I began shooting all handguns Bullseye style about 98% of the time. Weaver stance two-handed style shooting became quite dull after doing mostly that for thirty years or so.

When I mention Bullseye style shooting on this forum and shooting at 25 or 50 yards, I usually receive acerbic comments from those who live, eat, and breathe concealed carry theory and gunfighting fantasies. They see arguing as a competitive sport and won't pass up an opportunity to impart their "wisdom" and vast experience on those who enjoy precision shooting, and that's not many of us. They always bring up the tired "gunfights occur at close range" argument, certainly nothing more than an excuse not to learn to shoot well and the fact that they can't imagine any form of shooting that's not defense related.

Combat shooting sports and related gadgetry have certainly overtaken other forms of organized/ competitive shooting. However, there's still something to be said for other styles and disciplines of the shooting sports, even if success can't be quickly achieved. There's nothing quite like shooting small groups at 25 yards, at least for me, but I'm not about to try make converts at the range where virtually everyone shoots polymer pistols at 5-15 yards, just as fast as they can fire.

I can see why the NRA and AMERICAN RIFLEMAN are supportive of the current trend. There's always room for another 9mm pistol or Colt AR 15 facsimile that's cheap and not very accurate.