The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Rox,

Surely - no matter how good your ammo is - if you cannot shoot to the highest standard you are not going to win?

If someone was to tune a load for a brand new shooter - giving him/her the perfect (!) load for his/her new rifle - this does not mean he/she will win any comps. He/she still needs to ability to shoot, read the wind etc etc

Mike

Doz wrote:

ColinR wrote:If it is such a heart felt belief in fairness why do the British Team compete overseas using their own ammunition; smacks of hypocrisy.

I imagine it's a case of if the overseas competition allows the use of 'own ammunition', the British team would have to compete at a disadvantage, rather than hipocrisy. "When in Rome' etc...

With respect the point is not about advantage or disadvantage it is about the presumed fairness that drives the NRA to issue ammunition. If it is such a major issue that cannot be changed here in the UK it suggests that the British team are prepared to shoot competitions that have elements of UNfairness. Hence hypocrisy.......and I sincerely hope their ammunition is better than anyone else's!!

MiLisCer wrote:Rox,

Surely - no matter how good your ammo is - if you cannot shoot to the highest standard you are not going to win?

If someone was to tune a load for a brand new shooter - giving him/her the perfect (!) load for his/her new rifle - this does not mean he/she will win any comps. He/she still needs to ability to shoot, read the wind etc etc

Mike

You can 'buy' a much greater margin for error for your wind calls. Someone who is prepared to buy expensive efficient bullets and drive them hard enough to burn out barrels at 3 times the rate will have a competitive advantage, and could win over someone who is a better wind reader. This happens, even with bullet weight restrictions.

[edit: was 'bullet rate' - should be 'bullet weight']

..

Sounds like a can of worms to me.

ColinR wrote:Surely some shooters are already using guns/sighting systems that are inherently more accurate than others, so that initself must impose an advantage of sorts. Do golf tournaments insist only their golf balls be used, I don't know, or all use the same clubs. Most sports seem to use whatever advantage they are legally allowed; whether this is something in the NRA's favour to restrict ammunition on a 'fairness' basis I equally don't know. I suppose the argument is to impose a restriction in one area and let all the other variables look after themselves.

Swings and roundabouts. Ammo has a huge effect upon accuracy (or, more accurately, consistency) and if you handload you can spend hours tuning your load to the precise sweet spots of your rifle - things like seating the bullet at exactly the right depth, etc. You could even make up tailored loads for different distances during a match using different bullet heads. The average shooter who doesn't use handloads couldn't give himself those advantages.

I know the top shots do have barrels made which are precisely tailored to the issued ammo, but hey - you can't win them all.

One point I've not seen mentioned re issue ammo is the huge built in 'excuse' factor.

If you loaded your own ammo for the Imperial you would have no excuses for that bad shot when you relive each shot in the L & M or North London. You can at least blame RUAG for that pulled shot or missed wind call! We are all equal with RUAG.

I think it's worth 80 odd pence per round to save face :lol:

JohnG :cornwall: